Evil Racist Children and the Media

[quote]brushga wrote:
ALDurr wrote:
Although he was probably being sarcastic, he has brought up a good point. I doubt that many of them would do this, even though there are many nice, affluent non-white neighborhoods in America. I doubt that they could handle it. In fact, the only one that I would believe could handle it is Rainjack. This is based on what he has said in the past about how he grew up. The rest of them couldn’t deal with not being the majority in their neighborhood.

You’re full of shit. I live just south of the ATL and my neighborhood is over 50% percent black. Some of my best friends went to school where the enrollment was well over 50% black and hispanic. You should check yourself before you pass judgement on everyone else you POS, cause that shit cuts both ways…
[/quote]

Who are you? You have around 90 odd posts on T-Nation as a whole and including this one, you have about 2 in this particular forum. I have no clue who you are and thus couldn’t have possibly included you in any way, shape or form when it came to this statement. You weren’t even in the equation when I made this statement, so check your self-absorbed bullshit at the door and stop getting your panties in a bunch.

BTW, did YOU purposely move there knowing this bit of information? If you did, congrads, you are an exception, not a rule. However, if you live there because of mommy and daddy, then you need to STFU! The choice was not yours, child!

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Then by all of the definitions AlDurr is in fact stereotyping here:

even though there are many nice, affluent non-white neighborhoods in America. I doubt that they could handle it. In fact, the only one that I would believe could handle it is Rainjack. This is based on what he has said in the past about how he grew up. The rest of them couldn’t deal with not being the majority in their neighborhood.

And if I call him a closed minded T-Nation liberal I guess I’m stereotyping as well. No wait, if it’s true with every one of them then it’s not stereotyping.

Okay Al your turn.
[/quote]

I never said that I wasn’t stereotyping. If you would have asked me if I was doing that, I would have said yes. I knew that when I typed it. We all do it to an extent and YOU are the master of it. You will do it and then deny it 2 posts later. The difference is by a simple poll on this board, I can either prove or disprove my stereotype. You, on the other hand, cannot do so with your stereotype because yours is nothing more than labeling and small-minded name calling. None which has any real validity. Typical, feeble-minded tactics by someone who can’t see any viewpoints beyond his own nose.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Lorisco wrote:

How about getting life verses the death penalty. That counts!

O’tay, let’s see some examples where this happens.[/quote]

Time to use your brain Pro.

If hate crime has an added punishment to the crime (which it does as that was the legislation) then if someone is convicted of a hate crime they will get more punishment than a person who did the same crime for different reasons.

So buckwheat, I don’t have to provide any examples as that is how the law is written, to make hate crime have more punishment. So anytime it is used it will have more punishment than the non-hate crime.

O’Tay!

[quote]ExNole wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
ExNole wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Lorisco wrote:

But then again, changing how people think is what has been the lefts agenda for years.

Dumbest comment all day. What exactly are censorship and moral laws aimed at? I am all for hate crimes being distinguished because some of them have been truly horrible. If a man kills someone else just because of their skin color or their sexual preference, why would anyone be against them receiving a harsher penalty?

Tell that to the family of a loved one who was killed for his money and the guy gets lesser punishment than the hate crime guy who did the same thing.

You see Pro, the idea behind justice is that IT IS JUST FOR ALL! You kill someone and the penalty some be the same. If not, it is not just.

Motive is a determining factor in deciding just punishment. I.e. accidental death is punished much more severely than intentional, and particularly violent or sadistic crimes are given worse punishments than others. Punishment is also not designed to make family feel better. I think hate crimes are prima facie worse than other crimes, though you are free to disagree.

You have outlined the very reason why the system is NOT just. There is no way to accurately determine motivation and ones intent. So the punishment is never objectively linked to the crime. It is always subjective and therefore not accurately connected to the crime act.

As with every crime, the burden of proof is with the state. No, you cannot ever know another person’s mental states, and no you cannot recreate someone’s motivations, but there are clearly times when the evidence clearly demonstrates crimes motivated by hate and hate alone.

Displaying hate based intent is just as objective as proving insanity or malice. If you’re being strict about objectivity we can only talk about logic, math, and quote Descartes.

That was a total copout.[/quote]

And why is someone killing someone else for money any different than because they don’t like them? The act is the same. The outcome is the same. The justice (equal punishment) should also be the same.

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Lorisco wrote:

How about getting life verses the death penalty. That counts!

O’tay, let’s see some examples where this happens.

Time to use your brain Pro.

If hate crime has an added punishment to the crime (which it does as that was the legislation) then if someone is convicted of a hate crime they will get more punishment than a person who did the same crime for different reasons.

So buckwheat, I don’t have to provide any examples as that is how the law is written, to make hate crime have more punishment. So anytime it is used it will have more punishment than the non-hate crime.

O’Tay!

[/quote]

No, if you can provide no examples of it occuring at all in real life to any significant degree, it all adds up to you complaining about it for no good reason at all. As another poster noted, how can you be so against this objective classification but not against it when it comes to premeditated murder or any other category? Why not punish someone for killing another person simply because of their skin color?

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
ExNole wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
ExNole wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Lorisco wrote:

But then again, changing how people think is what has been the lefts agenda for years.

Dumbest comment all day. What exactly are censorship and moral laws aimed at? I am all for hate crimes being distinguished because some of them have been truly horrible. If a man kills someone else just because of their skin color or their sexual preference, why would anyone be against them receiving a harsher penalty?

Tell that to the family of a loved one who was killed for his money and the guy gets lesser punishment than the hate crime guy who did the same thing.

You see Pro, the idea behind justice is that IT IS JUST FOR ALL! You kill someone and the penalty some be the same. If not, it is not just.

Motive is a determining factor in deciding just punishment. I.e. accidental death is punished much more severely than intentional, and particularly violent or sadistic crimes are given worse punishments than others. Punishment is also not designed to make family feel better. I think hate crimes are prima facie worse than other crimes, though you are free to disagree.

You have outlined the very reason why the system is NOT just. There is no way to accurately determine motivation and ones intent. So the punishment is never objectively linked to the crime. It is always subjective and therefore not accurately connected to the crime act.

As with every crime, the burden of proof is with the state. No, you cannot ever know another person’s mental states, and no you cannot recreate someone’s motivations, but there are clearly times when the evidence clearly demonstrates crimes motivated by hate and hate alone.

Displaying hate based intent is just as objective as proving insanity or malice. If you’re being strict about objectivity we can only talk about logic, math, and quote Descartes.

That was a total copout.

And why is someone killing someone else for money any different than because they don’t like them? The act is the same. The outcome is the same. The justice (equal punishment) should also be the same.

[/quote]

Intent and malice are both mitigating factors in deciding punishment. There is no set guideline of killing someone equals= x punishment. There are mandatory minimums, but the severity of the crime, i.e. the intent, malice, grotesqueness of the crime all play a factor in the judge’s/jury’s decision on a final sentence. The same outcome is not the same act. Violence with malice is almost always treated more harshly. To me it is obvious that killing someone out of blind hatred is intuitively worse.

Like a crime of passion or a contract killing against a serial killer. One just seems worse.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Lorisco wrote:

How about getting life verses the death penalty. That counts!

O’tay, let’s see some examples where this happens.

Time to use your brain Pro.

If hate crime has an added punishment to the crime (which it does as that was the legislation) then if someone is convicted of a hate crime they will get more punishment than a person who did the same crime for different reasons.

So buckwheat, I don’t have to provide any examples as that is how the law is written, to make hate crime have more punishment. So anytime it is used it will have more punishment than the non-hate crime.

O’Tay!

No, if you can provide no examples of it occuring at all in real life to any significant degree, it all adds up to you complaining about it for no good reason at all. As another poster noted, how can you be so against this objective classification but not against it when it comes to premeditated murder or any other category? Why not punish someone for killing another person simply because of their skin color?[/quote]

How is race ONLY a matter of skin color? You keep saying skin color when race goes far beyond this.

[quote]En Sabah Nur wrote:
JJJJ wrote:
Two truths that I want to share.

The first is that it never ceases to amze me just how much bullshit people are willing to accept when talking about race. “Blacks have not realized the American Dream because of slavery and Jim Crow,” is one example that comes to mind.

That’s a complete load of crap. If it was true, then the black family would be stronger now than it was 50 years ago (it isn’t). Black illegitimacy rates would be lower now than 50 years ago (they’re not). The black crime rate would be lower now than it was 50 years ago (it isn’t). The FACT is that in some ways blacks have benefited from the end of slavery and Jim Crow . . . and in other ways their circumstances have gotten worse!

Now, logically, that might suggest that maybe the REAL problem with blacks is their inability to handle freedom and self-determination. (Take one look around the world. Every country run by blacks is a disaster.) So maybe blacks don’t function well in modern society. If so, then that can all be fixed. But we can’t even begin to fix the problem because WE’RE NOT ALLOWED TO TALK ABOUT IT.

So we ignore study after study which shows that blacks are different than whites physically, and generally have lower IQs as a population. We ignore studies that tell us that blacks have higher rates of testosterone which makes them more aggessive. We ignore population studies which suggest that blacks and whites follow different modes of child rearing.

But ignorance is only the tip of the iceberg. Some academics have gone the Afrocentric route and made up a lot of lies about black inventors (who according to some racist black websites appear to have invented every single thing currently used in America). Or they’ve made up a false history of Africa (“great wondrous empires” when in reality Africans never got around to inventing an alphabet). Or the NAACP sets up shop in Hollywwod and makes sure that every TV show has a quota of blacks acting in positions of power (which is a complete fantasy).

In short, we’d rather IGNORE REAL DIFFERENCES and LIE about them than examine them and figure out how to live together despite them.

And this brings me to my second “truth:” That the little singing Nazis represent a SUBSTANTIAL number of Americans who are sick and tired of the bullshit and want no more part of an integrated society.

The real cost of liberal lies about race over the last 50 years isn’t just the damage it has done to blacks. The real cost is the alienation that it has caused among whites. What were “fringe movements” 50 years ago are growing in strength every day.

The “white nationalist movement” isn’t getting stronger because of the little Gaede sisters or talking-heads like David Duke. They’re getting stronger because of stupid white liberals, racist Mexicans, groups like MECHA and La Raza, racist blacks and racist black (so-called) leaders like Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Louis Farrakhan, and issues like Affirmative Action and black on white crime.

Ignore the truth at your own peril. What WAS once a fringe is no longer a fringe. The Gaede sisters represent a growing power in American politics.

And it’s a dangerous one because history tells us that you haven’t seen ANGER until you’ve seen angry white men fighting for what they believe.

How come people are always scientifically testing the black race? And why are we always the control to which everyone else is compared to? I get so sick of hearing biological reasons for why black people excel at sports, ex. I had Indian and White friends tell me that the reason I had more “hops” than them was because black people had an extra tendon in their knee\leg…but hey maybe I’m wrong…

And black people in positions of power is a complete fantasy?

And I’d rather you - and in you I mean white people since I assume that’s whom you’re referring to - didn’t fix the problem. Since we’re all generalizing here, from a historical perspective when white people “fix” things that usually involves the mass exploitation and murder of other people who don’t fit their preconceived notions of how life is supposed to be lived.[/quote]

This is hysterical. I am in the healthcare field and the last time I checked, the only other healthcare professionals I know, dietitians, doctors, and nurses, who are voluntarily going to Africa to help starving and disease ridden black Africans are WHITE!

Oh, whites are always murdering other people? Well, what about when blacks were running amok in Zimbabwe and South Africa murdering and raping white farmers and their wives, sometimes with rapes occuring by the MINUTE? Why is it that some blacks in South Africa desire apartheid again since under apartheid, they were gainfully employed and their chances of being harmed by a fellow black was very low. Why is it that Mugabe gave land BACK to white Rhodesians after realizing that when he took away their farm lands, his country fell into economic disaster and starvation. It was pretty evil of those whites to supply a country with food, eh?
I am really not saying this to instigate or be a wiseass dick. I am just so sick of people saying that the white race is some evil race of sadists and enslavers!

All races have been cruel to one another and tried to conquer and/or enslave other races at some point in history. I am a Jew, and yes, even Jews have treated others in harmful ways before. Lazar Kaganovic, a head Jew in the Soviet Union starved 7 million Ukrainian, German, and Russian farmers to death pre-WW2. That is history and that’s it. But to single out one race is ridiculous.