Not when you open your doors to the public. What if they kicked a black guy out because they felt like it?[/quote]
If it’s private property they should be able to kick out whomever they wanted. I’m sure if they did that, they’d go out of business though.
What if it was my house? can I not kick people out based on race or religion? [/quote]
What if it’s a black person. Can they kick them out for being black?
Your not running a business with open doors to the public, right? I can’t just open the door and help myself to your fridge.[/quote]
If they selectively kick people out, it isn’t “open to the public”. Yes, they have the right, assuming its privately owned. I can’t just open the door to a restaurant and help myself to the fridge.
But if they are kicking people out, doesn’t that make it a private establishment?
If I sell home grown vegetables out of my house, can I no longer kick whomever I want out of it?
I’ve never understood why being “open to the public” means that you don’t really own the place anymore.[/quote]
I know the rules are different for business open to the public vs. private residence. What I am sure of is that you can’t be kicked out of an establishment for having a private conversation. Now if he was harassing people, that’s a different deal. Fuck him.[/quote]
Well, you can’t kick someone out for being black if it’s a business, due to a Supreme Court ruling back in, I believe the sixties, that said doing so violated the interstate commerce clause or some such thing (bear with me, this is purely from memory and I may be wrong). I believe the case involved southern motels refusing to admit blacks. So you can’t discriminate based on the person’s gender/sexual orientation/political affiliation, etc. However, while you can’t say “No black people in my store” you can say, “No militant black panthers running around handing out copies of Mao’s red book.” You can limit the type of speech allowed in your store (like signs that say “No swearing” and such).
This excludes private organizations like country clubs and the Boy Scouts, which can prohibit the membership of blacks, homosexuals, Jews, etc, at their leisure.
Not when you open your doors to the public. What if they kicked a black guy out because they felt like it?[/quote]
If it’s private property they should be able to kick out whomever they wanted. I’m sure if they did that, they’d go out of business though.
What if it was my house? can I not kick people out based on race or religion? [/quote]
What if it’s a black person. Can they kick them out for being black?
Your not running a business with open doors to the public, right? I can’t just open the door and help myself to your fridge.[/quote]
If they selectively kick people out, it isn’t “open to the public”. Yes, they have the right, assuming its privately owned. I can’t just open the door to a restaurant and help myself to the fridge.
But if they are kicking people out, doesn’t that make it a private establishment?
If I sell home grown vegetables out of my house, can I no longer kick whomever I want out of it?
I’ve never understood why being “open to the public” means that you don’t really own the place anymore.[/quote]
I know the rules are different for business open to the public vs. private residence. What I am sure of is that you can’t be kicked out of an establishment for having a private conversation. Now if he was harassing people, that’s a different deal. Fuck him.[/quote]
Well, you can’t kick someone out for being black if it’s a business, due to a Supreme Court ruling back in, I believe the sixties, that said doing so violated the interstate commerce clause or some such thing (bear with me, this is purely from memory and I may be wrong). I believe the case involved southern motels refusing to admit blacks. So you can’t discriminate based on the person’s gender/sexual orientation/political affiliation, etc. However, while you can’t say “No black people in my store” you can say, “No militant black panthers running around handing out copies of Mao’s red book.” You can limit the type of speech allowed in your store (like signs that say “No swearing” and such).
This excludes private organizations like country clubs and the Boy Scouts, which can prohibit the membership of blacks, homosexuals, Jews, etc, at their leisure. [/quote]
Which is a crock of shit to me. Don’t they have stores at country clubs? How can those stores exclude people and an every day store not? This “open to the public” is utter bs. You’re only open to the public if you allow everyone in. If you start denying people entrance, you aren’t open to the public.
A store is a private organization. Isn’t it private admission if a store only allows in customers?
The public smoking bans in MS pissed me off for this reason. If you are “open to the public” smoking isn’t allowed. This literally made it illegal for some people to smoke in their homes.
Well, apparently the Supreme Court thought otherwise, as they voted unanimously in the decision. If you wish to look it up, you can search Bailey v. Patterson online or in a constitutional law book.
That being said, if it wasn’t for Bailey v. Patterson, the entire South would still be segregated and as shitty as it was for blacks fifty years ago (minus schools and other public facilities, as decided by Brown v. Board of Education and other cases).
As for your other question
While a country club may or may not have a store, because the establishment itself is not an actual business, it is not subject to “interstate or intrastate commerce.” At least, this is my interpretation, I could be wrong.
[quote]jimmyjesus17 wrote:
Well, apparently the Supreme Court thought otherwise, as they voted unanimously in the decision. If you wish to look it up, you can search Bailey v. Patterson online or in a constitutional law book.
That being said, if it wasn’t for Bailey v. Patterson, the entire South would still be segregated and as shitty as it was for blacks fifty years ago (minus schools and other public facilities, as decided by Brown v. Board of Education and other cases).
As for your other question
While a country club may or may not have a store, because the establishment itself is not an actual business, it is not subject to “interstate or intrastate commerce.” At least, this is my interpretation, I could be wrong. [/quote]
Since you obviously haven’t been around it much, the south does still have a lot of shitty places for blacks.
And if what you were saying was true, all the private establishments in the south would still be segregated, they aren’t.
Perhaps you should look around into public schools in black areas, you may want to re-think what you said about them not being shitty.
I’d guarantee you that any grocery store, even in a place like Mississippi, that decided to go segregated, would go out of business.
If what you were saying were true, places like new york would still be segregated between Irish and German, est. because no laws were written to integrate them.
I’m also assuming you believe places like little Italy and china town in new york should be legislated out of existence.
It’s not merely a situation where a mall is kicing someone out for having a “private conversation.”
Characterizing this story in that fashion is a little broad in my opinion.
The mall certainly has a legitimate interest in not wanting individuals coming on their private property simply to proselytize actual shoppers.
It seems as if this guy was a “repeat offender” if you will, with no legitimate purpose at the mall.
This is completely different from the mall kicking me out because i’ve engaged in a conversation about religion with my friend, who is with me at the time. This involes a stranger whose only goal is, apparently, to convert others to his religion.
Any private property owner can kick a guy out for that.
[quote]jimmyjesus17 wrote:
Well, apparently the Supreme Court thought otherwise, as they voted unanimously in the decision. If you wish to look it up, you can search Bailey v. Patterson online or in a constitutional law book.
That being said, if it wasn’t for Bailey v. Patterson, the entire South would still be segregated and as shitty as it was for blacks fifty years ago (minus schools and other public facilities, as decided by Brown v. Board of Education and other cases).
As for your other question
While a country club may or may not have a store, because the establishment itself is not an actual business, it is not subject to “interstate or intrastate commerce.” At least, this is my interpretation, I could be wrong. [/quote]
Since you obviously haven’t been around it much, the south does still have a lot of shitty places for blacks.
And if what you were saying was true, all the private establishments in the south would still be segregated, they aren’t.
Perhaps you should look around into public schools in black areas, you may want to re-think what you said about them not being shitty.
I’d guarantee you that any grocery store, even in a place like Mississippi, that decided to go segregated, would go out of business.
If what you were saying were true, places like new york would still be segregated between Irish and German, est. because no laws were written to integrate them.
I’m also assuming you believe places like little Italy and china town in new york should be legislated out of existence.[/quote]
Of course it does, I never said there WEREN’T shitty places, I said life for blacks in the south wasn’t AS SHITTY as it was fifty years ago. That’s subjective, I know, but I didn’t think it was that controversial of a statement.
2)Huh? I said Bailey v. Patterson was WHY they COULDN’T be segregated any longer, by law. I’m not sure if I’m following.
3)Yes, schools for blacks are shitty, I have no doubt about that, but I said they were not AS SHITTY as they were in the 1960s, especially now that blacks have the option of going to schools that previously would have refused to admit them.
4)Not only would the store go out of business, they would have the living shit sued out of them, as it is illegal and unconstitutional for them to do so. This was not the case fifty years ago, when those stores got by just fine by doing so.
5)No, that’s not true. It’s entirely possible for cultures to eventually integrate. It just wasn’t going to happen in the South unless the government stepped in. You are comparing two entirely different situations, and you know it.
Do those places refuse the business of other races? Are other races barred from living there (and considering attempts to gentrify NY Chinatown, I’d call this a no)? Then I don’t see the problem.
Many malls ban firearms. I carry concealed and they never know. But does a public place have the right to take away my second amendment right? I’d let them if they assume 1005 liability to protect me from harm.
[quote]jimmyjesus17 wrote:
Well, apparently the Supreme Court thought otherwise, as they voted unanimously in the decision. If you wish to look it up, you can search Bailey v. Patterson online or in a constitutional law book.
That being said, if it wasn’t for Bailey v. Patterson, the entire South would still be segregated and as shitty as it was for blacks fifty years ago (minus schools and other public facilities, as decided by Brown v. Board of Education and other cases).
As for your other question
While a country club may or may not have a store, because the establishment itself is not an actual business, it is not subject to “interstate or intrastate commerce.” At least, this is my interpretation, I could be wrong. [/quote]
Since you obviously haven’t been around it much, the south does still have a lot of shitty places for blacks.
And if what you were saying was true, all the private establishments in the south would still be segregated, they aren’t.
Perhaps you should look around into public schools in black areas, you may want to re-think what you said about them not being shitty.
I’d guarantee you that any grocery store, even in a place like Mississippi, that decided to go segregated, would go out of business.
If what you were saying were true, places like new york would still be segregated between Irish and German, est. because no laws were written to integrate them.
I’m also assuming you believe places like little Italy and china town in new york should be legislated out of existence.[/quote]
Of course it does, I never said there WEREN’T shitty places, I said life for blacks in the south wasn’t AS SHITTY as it was fifty years ago. That’s subjective, I know, but I didn’t think it was that controversial of a statement.
[/quote]
Then you don’t know what you’re talking about. In a lot of ways it’s worse in places. Besides the fact that life isn’t as shitty for anyone as it was 50 years ago.
I’m not arguing this, where did it come up?
Once again, you show your ignorance. If you don’t know what you’re talking about, you should keep your misguided thoughts to yourself.
First, schools are not integrated (many places public schools are black, private white. Zoning is done to segregate too. Inner city schools are almost always segregated.) Public education many places isn’t worth the crumbling bricks the building is made of. Legislated integration destroyed much of the public education system in the south (to never recover for many places). It has also driven education prices through the roof, because you have to pay for private schools in many places. Blacks can’t afford the thousands of dollars for year, so they essentially get no education.
My point is that the people wouldn’t allow it.
oh, okay, it wouldn’t have happened because you said so, and the situations are different for the same reason. It still hasn’t happened some places genius.
So, you don’t see the problem in voluntarily segregated places. I bet if I told you Greenwood Mississippi is still literally segregated by the RR tracks, you’d start ranting about those stupid ignorant southerners. What if I told you that segregation was voluntary? The way it is today though, Blacks are safe to go/walk anywhere in the town, whites have to stay on their own side though.
What if I further told you some of the most segregated areas aren’t in the south? As of 2002 the most segregated metro areas where as follows: Milwaukee, Detroit, Cleveland, St. Louis and Newark, NJ. I think that maybe us folks down here in the south should get some laws written to fix the northern segregation problem. It’s obviously never going to happen unless we legislate answers.
Yeah, that silly little Civil Rights Movement was such a waste of time. We would have had a black president in like, 1968 if it hadn’t been for Brown v. Board of Education fucking things up, right?
2)You said, “if what you were saying was true, all private establishments in the south would be segregated, they aren’t.” They were forcibly desegregated by Bailey v. Patterson. I took what you were saying to mean that unlike the public sector, the private sector in the South desegregated itself. If I was mistaken, I am sorry.
3)I was discussing de jure segregation. You are discussing de facto segregation. They are different things. And come on, are you serious? Integration did not destroy the public schools, white flight did. Just because racists have done their best to circumvent the law does not make the law itself a bad thing.
4)Now? Yeah. In the 1960s? Of course the people would tolerate segregation. Segregated businesses thrived in the south, and the guiding hand of the free market wasn’t going to change that. You know that, I know that, PLEASE don’t pretend otherwise.
If you honestly can’t tell the difference between the situation between blacks and whites in 1960s South and Irish and Germans in New York, I really don’t know what to tell you. It boggles my mind.
6)Huh, as of 2002 the most segregated areas are in the North, not the South. I’m sure landmark legislation in the 1960s played no part in this, right? The South would definitely be less segregated than the North anyway, right?
Come on, man. You can’t expect me to take any of this shit seriously. I’m not even convinced you believe it.
Yeah, that silly little Civil Rights Movement was such a waste of time. We would have had a black president in like, 1968 if it hadn’t been for Brown v. Board of Education fucking things up, right?
[/quote]
The civil rights movement was more than laws, and whoâ??s positive impact was a change in the mind of people, not a change in legislation.
No Iâ??m saying the attitude of people has changed outside of legislation.
Yes, I speak in de facto terms, the things that actually matter and actually affect peoples lives. What the hell good is a rule that no one follows?
Yes, integration did. Shove a bunch of low income families into your local school system and see what happens. Cancel all public education for a year or 2 and see what happens. Cut federal funding to non cooperative schools and see what happens. It did not have the glorious results you are claiming.
Todayâ??s situation has nothing to do with circumventing the law. It has to do with responsible and able parents not allowing kids to go to terrible schools. Black culture in these areas puts little to no value on education nor do must have the resources to afford a decent private one anyway. It is not racist for a parent with the resources to not allow there kid to go to a horrible school.
“I will say, then, that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races – that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races from living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior and I as much as any other man, am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.”
-Abraham Lincoln
Surely this attitude by northern civil rights politicians could never have been overcome without these same laws in the 60s right? Please donâ??t pretend these attitudes could have ever changed before the legislation.
Itâ??s obvious that it does. Yet you have failed repeatedly to provide a single reason for why the 2 situations are distinct in the intended regard.
[quote]
6)Huh, as of 2002 the most segregated areas are in the North, not the South. I’m sure landmark legislation in the 1960s played no part in this, right? The South would definitely be less segregated than the North anyway, right?
Come on, man. You can’t expect me to take any of this shit seriously. I’m not even convinced you believe it. [/quote]
Iâ??m not sure there was a fully coherent thought in these last point. What I pointed out was entirely factual. Many large northern cities are absolutely segregated. Are you arguing with this fact? Are you saying the only segregation that counts is in the south?
Are you saying the â??landmark legislationâ?? desegregated the south while it didnâ??t the north? Are you saying the legislation made northern cities segregated? You are rambling.
I never made the claim that the south was less segregated, but it sounds as if you are acknowledging that it is.
It is entirely obvious that you lack actual experience in this area. If you are interested in some, I can offer you a place to stay in the Mississippi delta. Iâ??ll even give you a list of places to visit so you can see how well your glorious civil rights movement and legislation worked out, de facto.
Yeah, that silly little Civil Rights Movement was such a waste of time. We would have had a black president in like, 1968 if it hadn’t been for Brown v. Board of Education fucking things up, right?
[/quote]
The civil rights movement was more than laws, and who�¢??s positive impact was a change in the mind of people, not a change in legislation.
No I�¢??m saying the attitude of people has changed outside of legislation.
Yes, I speak in de facto terms, the things that actually matter and actually affect peoples lives. What the hell good is a rule that no one follows?
Yes, integration did. Shove a bunch of low income families into your local school system and see what happens. Cancel all public education for a year or 2 and see what happens. Cut federal funding to non cooperative schools and see what happens. It did not have the glorious results you are claiming.
Today�¢??s situation has nothing to do with circumventing the law. It has to do with responsible and able parents not allowing kids to go to terrible schools. Black culture in these areas puts little to no value on education nor do must have the resources to afford a decent private one anyway. It is not racist for a parent with the resources to not allow there kid to go to a horrible school.
“I will say, then, that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races – that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races from living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior and I as much as any other man, am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.”
-Abraham Lincoln
Surely this attitude by northern civil rights politicians could never have been overcome without these same laws in the 60s right? Please don�¢??t pretend these attitudes could have ever changed before the legislation.
It�¢??s obvious that it does. Yet you have failed repeatedly to provide a single reason for why the 2 situations are distinct in the intended regard.
The Civil Rights movement was more than laws, but its true successes came from legislation that protected minorities from discrimination and finally granted them equal rights.
2)And I’m saying that’s impossible to measure and an utterly meaningless statement.
3)Shove a bunch a black families into schools with racist whites and those whites will flee the school district and join private schools specifically to avoid integration. You make it sound like blacks joined the school and that suddenly made the schools bad, and THEN the whites started leaving. This isn’t true, and you know it. And hey, let’s just forget that Brown v. Board finally made it possible for blacks to go to white colleges and actually get a decent education, and go on to become lawyers and judges and politicians, because none of that actually matters, right?
As for rules that no one followsâ??well I guess we should get rid of all international laws banning terrorism, since al-Qaeda clearly isn’t intimidated by it.
And yet, looking at the South and the North in the 1960s, life for blacks was utterly and unarguably worse in South, suggesting that while the North slowly overcame its prejudices, the South was perfectly content with keeping things the same.
5)Well, perhaps because legislation in the South forcibly segregated and dehumanized blacks, making them into second class citizens and preventing them from ever realistically prospering. And New York, you know, didn’t have that.
6)No, I am saying the reason why the South has become less segregated than some areas in the north is because legislation in the 1960s ended de jure segregation, thereby making the south less segregated. If the South’s de jure segregation was not overturned, the South would have never come close to becoming “less segregated” than the North.
I understand that as a Southern apologist you feel the need to distort history to fit your twisted worldview, but you have to understand that I’m just not buying it. And thanks for the offer, but I’ve been to the South, have white and black friends from the South, and really am not interested in your supposed proof of the terrors of integration.
Laws don’t and cannot grant rights. This is the fundamental error of your whole argument.
Really? You’re claim is that legislation changed people. I’m claiming that the legislation didn’t change people. My claim is utterly meaningless and impossible to measure, but yours isn’t? Try applying the same standards to your statements. I have grown up in the areas that we are discussing; I think my opinion should count slightly more. If we were both making claims about Korea or someplace neither of us actually knew, then it would be equal footing.
I swear I’m dealing with a child. Oh lawdy, all them racist whites and not going to public schools. Put your money where your mouth is and send your kid (or hell, attend one yourself, you sound young enough) to a crappy inner city school, if you don’t you’re a racist prick.
How exactly did the whites end up leaving all the inner city schools? RACIST YANKEES!
If brown v. board of education evened the playing field, why was there continued legislation to help blacks into school afterward? Because unless admission staff change their outlook, the kids still don’t get in; unless teachers change their attitude, they don’t pass; unless fellow children change their attitude, they get bullied till they drop out. Laws are the least important part of the equation, because if attitudes change, legislation either flows from that or isn’t necessary, while legislation is entirely ineffective without human change.
The legal changes don’t matter if people’s attitudes don’t change. Period. You cannot legislate morality. It doesn’t and has never worked that way. It’s been tried over and over and over. Until people change it’s worthless.
Take prohibition. Legislated morality without the hearts of the people. Miserable failure. It did nothing to curb the “immorality” of alcohol consumption. You are entirely wrong if you think otherwise.
This is once again a terrible strawman argument. I never said that laws preventing the segregation of public facilities were a bad thing. I said that the laws aren’t responsible for the improvements we’ve seen in equality and freedom.
Now if you were going to make the claim that terrorism laws are going to or have solved the problem (the same way you made the claim about integration), I’ll call you an idiot again.
First, moral justification by comparison is about the most childish thing you can do. It’s entirely relative and can be used to argue anything without any real merit. How about the fact that Europe beat the northern US to the punch outlawing slavery. By your own logic, the north was just content to keep things the same with slavery and would have never changed. (see how dumb the argument your using is?)
Second, I don’t think you’re entirely correct on thinking life for blacks was so much better in the north. Certainly not in inner cities. But, if things were sooooo much better, would you please explain to me why out of 26 race riots from 1955-1977 only 4 occurred in the “old south”? Why was most of the civil rights eras’ violence in places like new york, Detroit, and Chicago (85% if you’d like a statistic)?
* 1958: Battle of Hayes Pond (Maxton, North Carolina)
* 1963: Cambridge riot of 1963 (Cambridge, Maryland)
* 1964: Harlem Riot (Harlem neighborhood, Manhattan, New York City)
* 1964: Rochester riot (Rochester, New York)
* 1964: Philadelphia 1964 race riot (North Philadelphia section of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania)
* 1965: Watts Riots (Watts neighborhood, Los Angeles, California)
* 1966: Hough Riots (Hough community, Cleveland, Ohio)
* 1966: North Omaha, Nebraska (North Omaha community, Omaha, Nebraska)
* Long Hot Summer of 1967
o 1967: Tampa Riots, (Tampa, Florida)
o 1967: Texas Southern University Riot (Houston, Texas)
o 1967: 1967 Detroit riot (Detroit, Michigan)
o 1967: Buffalo riot (Buffalo, NewYork)
o 1967: Milwaukee Riot (Milwakee, Wisconsin)
o 1967: Minneapolis North Side Riots (Minneapolis, Minnesota )
o 1967: 1967 Newark riots (Newark, New Jersey)
o 1967: Plainfield riots (Plainfield, New Jersey)
o 1967: 1967 Detroit riot (Detroit, Michigan)
* 1968: Orangeburg massacre (Orangeburg, South Carolina)
* 1968: Nationwide riots following the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr.
o 1968: Baltimore riot of 1968 (Baltimore, Maryland)
o 1968: Chicago (April 1968) (Chicago,Illinois)
o 1968: Louisville riots of 1968 (Louisville, Kentucky)
o 1968: 1968 Washington, D.C. riots (Washington, D.C.)
* 1969: 1969 York Race Riot (York, Pennsylvania
* 1969: Stonewall riots (Greenwich Village neighborhood, Manhattan, New York City, New York)
* 1970: Jackson State killings (Jackson, Mississippi)
* 1971: Camden Riots (Camden, New Jersey)
* 1972-1977: Escambia High School riots (Pensacola, Florida)
Yes. It did have that. You need to go read some early new york history. To be Irish at the time was essentially the same as being black. Irish were even referred to was “white Negros”. I mean seriously the parallels are uncanny. There were even riots that paralleled the race riots I just mentioned previously. It is absolutely a fair comparison.
Oh, so the north is just better at de facto segregation, but when they do it, it’s not racist. Got ya.
[quote]
I understand that as a Southern apologist you feel the need to distort history to fit your twisted worldview, but you have to understand that I’m just not buying it. And thanks for the offer, but I’ve been to the South, have white and black friends from the South, and really am not interested in your supposed proof of the terrors of integration. [/quote]
Apparently, it doesn’t matter what I write, because you are going to twist it to mean whatever you want it to. I’m the one saying the south isn’t a great place and has a long way to go. The only one refusing to recognize the problems in the area they are from is YOU.
You are the one with this image of the north riding in on a shining horse made of laws and saving the helpless south from itself. THIS is revisionist history. The south wasn’t and isn’t saved, the north didn’t save it with laws, the laws didn’t magically make it a happy place, and the north isn’t a white night to begin with.
Please, go do some living, then tell me how things are.
1)Laws can and do grant rights. That is the fundamental error in your entire argument. If you wish to back it up, go ahead and try. I look forward to being amused.
2)If it wasn’t the legislation, what was it? Millions of racist southerners were suddenly moved to tears by the plight of blacks? Are you suggesting they were unaware of the conditions of blacks until the Civil Rights movement? You are more than welcome to try prove it, but as for your opinion, I really could not care less.
3)Inner city schools weren’t the only ones affectedâ??suburban and rural public schools also faced white flight after Brown v. Board of Education. Perfectly good schools suddenly lost their former population to a swarm of newly created private schools whose purpose was to avoid integration, not to pursue a “better education.”
Brown did not “even the playing field” because you can’t have a centuries of inequality and then have everything be hunky dory. That’s why affirmative action took place.
The reason you have laws is because waiting for someone’s mind to change about homophobia, racism, sexism, etc. isn’t fair to the minorities being persecuted. If you’re discriminated against, you have the right to change that NOW, not just wait until everybody realizes that blacks aren’t intellectually inferior. People always have and always will use the legal system in order to further themselves.
Really? You claimed that Brown v. Board of Education only made things worse, indicating that you did, in fact, think desegregation laws were a bad thing. Or are they only a good thing when everybody agrees on desegregation anyway, thereby making the law unnecessary and pointless?
I didn’t say the South would never change. I simply said change wasn’t coming any time soon (although I would love to see how you would prove it was) and that legislation was necessary in order to speed things up. The problem was not whether or not the South would eventually end segregation, it was the fact that the South WAS segregating its population and it was not constitutional, therefore it needed to be fixed. That’s how the legal system works in America, that’s how it’s always worked.
And the threat of the KKK certainly did not encourage resistance and rebellion in the South, so that’s a factor. If rioting in your hometown is going to cause your entire family to be raped and lynched, you might be discouraged from doing so. Also, using race riots as your sole indicator of inequality is not a very strong argument. Why don’t you look at some other statistics: test scores, average life span, infant mortality rate, graduation rate, average income, etc? I’m sure the South was just kicking ass in all of those.
5)Forgive me, I thought we were talking about the 1960s. So let’s say, for shits and giggles, that it is a fair comparison. What’s your point? It was wrong and legislation should have been enacted federally to stop it. The federal government should have been involved and declared it unconstitutional from the start. The Irish should never have waited for public opinion to change.
6)It is most certainly racist. You have no argument from me there. I simply pointed out that with the South’s legalized de jure segregation, the Southern metropolitan areas would have been even more segregated than the North. So again, what’s your point? Oh, I get it, you’re claiming South would have gotten there without the legislation. Sorry, not buying it.
7)Oh, there are certainly problems in the North. I never said otherwise. However, to act like the South would have reached its present state today without the Civil War and civil rights legislation is just plain false, no matter how you try to spin it.
Please, read some fucking books, then tell me how things are.
Dont use Ron Paul as an avatar if you cannot even understand basic property rights. Its great that you seem to support him, but if you gotta think about it that hard and post this stuff with an incendiary title, then you clearly are confused about the Liberty movement - This aint the same old “conservatives”.
I agree laws do not only grant rights they usually have built in remedies for rights not acknowledged
And on the subject of life not being better in the north than the south for blacks, why would the blacks want to escape to the north? I remember driving to W.Va. when I was a kid , the south maintained a Guard Shack right at the Mason Dixon line , I am sure it was more than symbolism
[quote]jimmyjesus17 wrote:
1)Laws can and do grant rights. That is the fundamental error in your entire argument. If you wish to back it up, go ahead and try. I look forward to being amused.
[/quote]
No, rights are universal, laws can only acknowledge them.
If you accept that laws grant rights, that means that the rights flow from the government to the people. Here in America, the country is founded on the exact opposite principal. That it is the people that grant rights to the government.
HAH! Um, how about the civil rights movement itself? How about the actual activists. The people that staged marches and sit-ins. Seems to me those guys were pretty important in the whole civil rights thing.
So if you are acknowledging that the situation in the north was the same, why do you continually single out the “racist south”?
Need I remind you that we have freedom of both thought and speech in this country. Racism is not and should not be illegal. It sounds like you are talking about using laws to make people believe and act as you like. You need to realize that positive and negative rights are mutually exclusive. You are talking about granting positives rights legally, which in tern removes negative rights from others. It happens to be against the constitution.
No, I said the integration laws destroyed public education in the south. If you can’t logically understand how that is different than saying “desegregation laws were a bad thing” you are more childish than I thought. You are terrible at building strawmen.
Much the same way you prove how long it would have taken. You happen to be mocking me for proof when you are making a claim about the same thing. Are you dumb enough to miss the hypocrisy of this?
And time and again I’ve pointed out that segregation was and is a national problem in no way isolated to the south. And once more you ignore the facts. Plus your tone is now in stark contrast to your original statement “the entire South would still be segregated and as shitty as it was for blacks fifty years ago”. Backtracking much?
Prove it then. Either way my example clearly illustrates that the north had substantial racial problems you’re ignoring.
Oh you are soooo right, oh wait, if you once again apply those same measures to inner cities up north they suck too.
You said the south would never have changed. You have apparently changed your stance at this point. The example was showing that things change without legislation. I’ve also shown, by example, that legislation by itself falls flat on it’s face. If you are changing your position in the middle of the argument, I can’t be blamed for the example not applying as well to your new stance.
So how did the laws result in northern cities being more segregated than southern ones? You have yet to explain this.
Apparently I cannot get it through your skull that I’ve never said integration laws were bad. I happen to think the human aspect is the only real difference maker. I mean really, who the hell said anything about the south being anywhere without the civil war? Where are you getting this stuff? May I start attributing arguments to you? You completely invented that statement.
But if you are going to bring it up, where do you think the northern slave states would have been without the civil war?
Your final statement is once again far removed from “the entire South would still be segregated and as shitty as it was for blacks fifty years ago”. If you would remember correctly, this is the statement that was being debated.
And you pretending that the laws are what led the way on civil rights is absolutely ignorant.
Please stick to coloring books and leave opinions to adults.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I agree laws do not only grant rights they usually have built in remedies for rights not acknowledged
And on the subject of life not being better in the north than the south for blacks, why would the blacks want to escape to the north? I remember driving to W.Va. when I was a kid , the south maintained a Guard Shack right at the Mason Dixon line , I am sure it was more than symbolism
[/quote]
Ironically, West Virginia stayed with the union during the civil war and actually separated from Virginia over it.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I agree laws do not only grant rights they usually have built in remedies for rights not acknowledged
And on the subject of life not being better in the north than the south for blacks, why would the blacks want to escape to the north? I remember driving to W.Va. when I was a kid , the south maintained a Guard Shack right at the Mason Dixon line , I am sure it was more than symbolism
[/quote]
Ironically, West Virginia stayed with the union during the civil war and actually separated from Virginia over it. [/quote]
You are right , that was on the border of Pa. and Maryland on the way to W.Va. thanks , I just rember crossing it everytime.
They used to say that you should not let the sun go down on you, if you are black