Is the "Alt-Left" Hurting the Republicans, or the Democrats? - Page 8 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

All general discussion about politics that doesn't belong in any of the other forums.

Moderator: PoFo Political Circus Mods

#14842760
Pants-of-dog wrote:Next question:

Is there any moral difference between these two scenarios?

Scenario one: A black person is minding their own business when a racist person comes up and punches the black person.

Scenario two: A black person is minding their own business when a racist person comes up and calls the black person a N*****, and the black person punches the racist person.

1. white guy gets charged with assault.
2. black guy gets charged with assault.

quit trying to ascribe morality to violence pod.
#14842768
jessupjonesjnr87 wrote:@Pants-of-dog in your honest opionon is there any moral difference between these two scenarios?

A. White man punches black man for being black

B. Black man punches white man for being white


Yes. The former helps perpetuate a long standing tradition of racism that has had a profound impact on US society. The latter does not, since there is no such tradition of racism against white people.

The former also supports the racism that black people have to deal with today. White people today do not deal with racism so it would be impossible for the latter to support any racism.

I am not the only person who thinks there is a difference. Apparently the US justice system thinks that the latter is more likely to be a crime while the former is not.

https://www.law.umich.edu/special/exone ... ctions.pdf

Now that I have answered your question, please answer mine. Thank you.

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

@Buzz62

So you see no difference between the two.

Interesting. Why not?
#14842773
Pants-of-dog wrote:Yes. The former helps perpetuate a long standing tradition of racism that has had a profound impact on US society. The latter does not, since there is no such tradition of racism against white people.

The former also supports the racism that black people have to deal with today. White people today do not deal with racism so it would be impossible for the latter to support any racism.

I am not the only person who thinks there is a difference. Apparently the US justice system thinks that the latter is more likely to be a crime while the former is not.

https://www.law.umich.edu/special/exone ... ctions.pdf

Now that I have answered your question, please answer mine. Thank you.

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

@Buzz62

So you see no difference between the two.

Interesting. Why not?

Both are assault.
I didn't enslave anyone. Nor am I gonna wear the cloak of guilt you seem so comfy in. Nor am I gonna put allot of stock in a paper funded by the Proteus Fund.

Pretty much everyone knows that the jails are full of black people, and that crime is rampant in black neighborhoods, and that the established systems governing, may be somewhat at fault for this.

But both are guilty of assault, and to me, that's all that really matters.

You seem to think the evil white guy should spend eternity paying for his evils.
And I'll make you a deal. I'll start feeling guilty about evils I have not commited, when you start feeling guilty for all the multiple-father, single-mother families on welfare.
#14842785
Pants-of-dog wrote:Yes. The former helps perpetuate a long standing tradition of racism that has had a profound impact on US society. The latter does not, since there is no such tradition of racism against white people.

The former also supports the racism that black people have to deal with today. White people today do not deal with racism so it would be impossible for the latter to support any racism.

I am not the only person who thinks there is a difference. Apparently the US justice system thinks that the latter is more likely to be a crime while the former is not.


I'd like to clarify this: are you saying you think a person assaulting someone because of their ethnic/racial background isn't racism if it's someone assaulting someone who is white because they are white? Or are you devil's advocating and pointing out the justice system in the US considers racial violence against non-whites more seriously than racial violence against whites?
#14842830
Buzz62 wrote:Both are assault.


Yes.

Do you consider both equally moral?

I didn't enslave anyone. Nor am I gonna wear the cloak of guilt you seem so comfy in.


Since I never claimed or asked for any of these things, we shall move on...

Nor am I gonna put allot of stock in a paper funded by the Proteus Fund.


This is an ad hominem fallacy.

Pretty much everyone knows that the jails are full of black people, and that crime is rampant in black neighborhoods, and that the established systems governing, may be somewhat at fault for this.

But both are guilty of assault, and to me, that's all that really matters.


Okay, but that is not what I am asking.

I am asking if you see a moral difference between these two situations.

You seem to think the evil white guy should spend eternity paying for his evils.
And I'll make you a deal. I'll start feeling guilty about evils I have not commited, when you start feeling guilty for all the multiple-father, single-mother families on welfare.


Since I do not want you to feel guilty nor care about your guilt at all, I will simply ignore this.

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

Bulaba Jones wrote:I'd like to clarify this: are you saying you think a person assaulting someone because of their ethnic/racial background isn't racism if it's someone assaulting someone who is white because they are white?


If we define racism as simply prejudices or discrimination, then both are racism.

But one is systemic and the other is not. This is because of the two different historical and modern contexts that the two races experience in western societies. One group has power to enforce their racism at almost every level of society while the other one does not, and this is a significant qualitative difference.

It would be like saying that the working class experience class warfare, and pointing out that the rich also have to deal wih class warfare, and then calling both of these "classism" and then stopping our analysis there.

Or are you devil's advocating and pointing out the justice system in the US considers racial violence against non-whites more seriously than racial violence against whites?


No. I am saying that even though white on black racism is systemic and more socially significant (or more likely because of this!) , black on white racism is probably more often considered a crime.

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

jessupjonesjnr87 wrote:@Pants-of-dog, you say white people dont deal with racism but if someone was attacked for being white then they would be dealing with racism. And it doesnt matter if you alone believe in your views or not.


Yes, it would be an individual act of racism and not part of a larger pattern of socially enforced systemic racism.
#14842836
Pants-of-dog wrote:Yes.

Do you consider both equally moral?

How many times do I have to tell you?
YES. Equal. In lack of morality.
I would say that your opinion, that a black guy punching a white guy in the mouth, is somehow "morally" better that a white guy doing the same, is fuckin' silly, and exemplifies a warped sense of "morality".
#14842841
no doubt...

Its sad that this polarization has happened, but it has.
And I think most of this, today anyway, is a direct result of the devastation Democrats feel over the presidency. That doesn't excuse the crap McConnell and his crew got up to during the Obama years, nor the obscene crap Bush and Co. generated. But we do live in a democracy. And in this democracy, at this time, the exhibition of dictatorial nonsense the left has been openly airing, has tuned me from centerist further to the right.
Your attitude and childish exhibitions are embarrassing, and dangerous.
But hey...thanks for showing just how morally bereft you can be. It's helped me, and I'd suspect allot of centerists, identify you for what you really are.

Destructive.
#14842849
Buzz62 wrote:How many times do I have to tell you?
YES. Equal. In lack of morality.
I would say that your opinion, that a black guy punching a white guy in the mouth, is somehow "morally" better that a white guy doing the same, is fuckin' silly, and exemplifies a warped sense of "morality".


So the fact that the racist guy deliberately egged on the black person by saying a racial slur is irrelevant?
#14842932
In scenario A the white man is completely at fault.

In scenario B both men are at fault and are a hinderance to the peaceful progression of mankind. The white man slightly more for instigating the situation but the the black man is also at fault for taking violent retribution.

I'm not a pacifist but violence should only be used when all other avenues have been exhausted.
Last edited by jessupjonesjnr87 on 12 Sep 2017 16:23, edited 2 times in total.
#14842933
Pants-of-dog wrote:So the fact that the racist guy deliberately egged on the black person by saying a racial slur is irrelevant?

How many times do I have to tell you POD.
Racist guys will always be around. You've taken up a cause that can't be won, because you can't possibly ever hope to wipe out "racism". And perhaps that's the exact point?

You can't fight with ideas. You can teach people to resist, or even be sickened by ideas. You can teach people to bury such ideas. But you will never succeed in erasing ideas. Do you really think you can?

What would you do if you happened to run into a white guy, who had mugged your kids?
#14842938
jessupjonesjnr87 wrote:In scenario A the white man is completely at fault.

In scenario B both men are at fault and are a hinderance to the peaceful progression of mankind. The white man slightly more for instigating the situation but the the black man is also at fault for taking violent retribution.

I'm not a pacifist but violence should only be used when all other avenues have been exhausted.


So when racists do their rallies, and shout their racist beliefs at everyone, they are partly to blame for any violence that may result.

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

Buzz62 wrote:How many times do I have to tell you POD.
Racist guys will always be around. You've taken up a cause that can't be won, because you can't possibly ever hope to wipe out "racism". And perhaps that's the exact point?

You can't fight with ideas. You can teach people to resist, or even be sickened by ideas. You can teach people to bury such ideas. But you will never succeed in erasing ideas. Do you really think you can?

What would you do if you happened to run into a white guy, who had mugged your kids?


This is all completely irrelevant.

Now, why are you ignoring the fact that the racist white guy deliberately provoked the violence?
  • 1
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10

You can't be right just because you say you are, a[…]

These days we hear mainly how the European far rig[…]

"There is a diversity of sources that provide[…]

With due respect he was intimately involved in th[…]