My opinions: 1. There is definitely a lack of equal justice, on both sides. Those black adults ( tired of seeing them portrayed as poor teens when they were all over 18 except for one or two) should be sentenced to the maximun allowed. Those white kids who hung the nooses in the tree should be charged with either a hate crime, incitement to riot, or both; and should be sentenced to the maximum allowed. 2. Al Sharpton is a racist bigot, and does nothing unless it gets his face and loud mouth on the news or in papers. 3. Jesse Jackson, who does have faults, for the most part tries to be a mediator between parties and tries to find a peaceful solution. 4. Although I respect the NAACP for what it is stated to stand for, it has become a political tool for the Sharpton's and Farrahkan's of the world to use in their agendas. Also, if I were to start the NAAWP or the NAAHP, I'd automatically be labeled a racist and refused permission for my foundation to exist. Last time I checked, white people can't get a scholarship from the NAACP.
NAACP isn't only for black people... infact you are more than welcome to join... AND INFACT #2 isn't the current president of the Southern NAACP currently a white woman?
What's your Wu Name? Donovan --> Wu Name = Violent Knight Methane47 --> Wu Name = Thunderous Leader "Some people call me the walking plank, 'cuz any where you go... Death is right behind you.." <i>ME<i>
ya, they beat someone up, he was released from the hospital later that day and attended a "social event" that evening. That is not attempted murder under any circumstances. Fights happen all the time, and its especially ridiculous when the same thing happened in reverse and they got off fine. Im honestly not looking at this as "black vs white" thing, its just two groups of kids did the same thing to each other and one got attempted murder and one got basically nothing.
Which means they should be protesting the fact that the White kid got off easy. Not trying to get some criminals back on the street. which is what those 6 are. Especially the one that they are most in up in arms about. The one with 4 prior convictions for juvenile crime. Including a prior violent crime. This isn't the good boy that they are trying to make him sound like.
I think these guys should be let free. Why? Because when I was growing up, I got in some fights that were way rougher and far larger in scale and no one got convicted of anything. Yeah, we had to spend a few nights in the county jail with real criminals, but the law never had to get any more involved than that. The problem with today's society is that it seems to think that violence is something that can be eliminated rather than an integral part of human nature. Violence is a part of nearly every young man's life and the generations before this one made room for that within some very clear and common sense guidelines. Fist fights were nothing more than business as usual, but once weapons came into play it would be assault. Simple no? On top of that, these young men had been antagonized by the white students at this school and the "authority" turned a largely blind eye. Sure, they paid lip service, but letting a kid go after he came at you with a broken beer bottle? Even in my day that would have been crossing the line? In this kind of situation, when you and yours are being threatened and the "law" is doing nothing about it, you have to take matters into your own hands. When law men break the law, there is no law. This was a case of boys being boys and the law doesn't need to get any more involved.
This is the worst thing I have ever heard. So 6 guys beating up one guy is just boys being boys? That's the long and the short of it, yeah. What about the kid with a prior record of beating up his girlfriend and whipping out his penis and urinating in class? Separate incidents that require attention in and of themselves and have nothing to do with the other five young men in question. Is that just boys being boys?
The kids at the party who beat up the black kid and these 6 should all go away for the maximum. They are hooligans and nothing more. They will all end up in jail eventually anyways and they will never be a successful member of society. Nice. Someone doesn't conform to your moral values so they are completely beyond redemption and permanent failures. Seriously, you should entertain crippled kids in the burn ward....
Violence has never been a integral part of human nature. I have a whole shelf of history books that states otherwise. It is one of the worst things that humans are capable of and brings up back to the level of animals. There is a big difference between a common fist fight and assault with intent. The ability to rise above the usage of violence is what makes us human beings. It's the inability to listen to reason and compromise that makes controlled violence a necessary evil. The people that are incapable of doing so are nothing more then animals. (and that goes for them no matter what the color of their skin is) How empowering it must be to have the authority to declare who is and is not to be considered human. And I suppose that declaring the people "animals" means that we can treat them as animals and deny them the dignity deserving of humans? How then do separate yourself from them?
My opinions: 1. There is definitely a lack of equal justice, on both sides. Those black adults ( tired of seeing them portrayed as poor teens when they were all over 18 except for one or two) should be sentenced to the maximun allowed. Those white kids who hung the nooses in the tree should be charged with either a hate crime, incitement to riot, or both; and should be sentenced to the maximum allowed. 2. Al Sharpton is a racist bigot, and does nothing unless it gets his face and loud mouth on the news or in papers. 3. Jesse Jackson, who does have faults, for the most part tries to be a mediator between parties and tries to find a peaceful solution. 4. Although I respect the NAACP for what it is stated to stand for, it has become a political tool for the Sharpton's and Farrahkan's of the world to use in their agendas. Also, if I were to start the NAAWP or the NAAHP, I'd automatically be labeled a racist and refused permission for my foundation to exist. Last time I checked, white people can't get a scholarship from the NAACP.
NAACP isn't only for black people... infact you are more than welcome to join... AND INFACT #2 isn't the current president of the Southern NAACP currently a white woman?
I remember reading back that someone tried to apply for a scholarship from the NAACP and after talking to them he mentioned he was white and asked if that was a problem. They wouldn't help him and called him a bunch of names etc.
Also the NAACP doesn't exactly come off in a very good light when you have people like Jessie Jackson at these events and then saying a Presidential Candidate "is acting white" because Obama wasn't all over this event. How is that not a racist hateful remark?
The same thing happened when Bill Cosby spoke out against thug behavior in the black community. Any Black person who speaks out against this type of behavior is automatically labeled as "acting white". Which is such horrible racism.
I think these guys should be let free. Why? Because when I was growing up, I got in some fights that were way rougher and far larger in scale and no one got convicted of anything. Yeah, we had to spend a few nights in the county jail with real criminals, but the law never had to get any more involved than that. The problem with today's society is that it seems to think that violence is something that can be eliminated rather than an integral part of human nature. Violence is a part of nearly every young man's life and the generations before this one made room for that within some very clear and common sense guidelines. Fist fights were nothing more than business as usual, but once weapons came into play it would be assault. Simple no? On top of that, these young men had been antagonized by the white students at this school and the "authority" turned a largely blind eye. Sure, they paid lip service, but letting a kid go after he came at you with a broken beer bottle? Even in my day that would have been crossing the line? In this kind of situation, when you and yours are being threatened and the "law" is doing nothing about it, you have to take matters into your own hands. When law men break the law, there is no law. This was a case of boys being boys and the law doesn't need to get any more involved.
This is the worst thing I have ever heard. So 6 guys beating up one guy is just boys being boys? That's the long and the short of it, yeah. What about the kid with a prior record of beating up his girlfriend and whipping out his penis and urinating in class? Separate incidents that require attention in and of themselves and have nothing to do with the other five young men in question. Is that just boys being boys?
The kids at the party who beat up the black kid and these 6 should all go away for the maximum. They are hooligans and nothing more. They will all end up in jail eventually anyways and they will never be a successful member of society. Nice. Someone doesn't conform to your moral values so they are completely beyond redemption and permanent failures. Seriously, you should entertain crippled kids in the burn ward....
Violence has never been a integral part of human nature. I have a whole shelf of history books that states otherwise. It is one of the worst things that humans are capable of and brings up back to the level of animals. There is a big difference between a common fist fight and assault with intent. The ability to rise above the usage of violence is what makes us human beings. It's the inability to listen to reason and compromise that makes controlled violence a necessary evil. The people that are incapable of doing so are nothing more then animals. (and that goes for them no matter what the color of their skin is) How empowering it must be to have the authority to declare who is and is not to be considered human. And I suppose that declaring the people "animals" means that we can treat them as animals and deny them the dignity deserving of humans? How then do separate yourself from them?
You are right there is a difference between a common fist fight and assault. What those 6 did was commit assault with intent to injure. The white kid didn't throw the first punch and didn't get a chance to throw any punches. They hit him knocked him down and kicked him while he layed on the ground. That isn't a fight. That is assault.
Psychologically speaking the inablity to control one's primal urges makes you an animal. That is what makes us different from the animals. Resorting to violence is a primal urge and normal law abiding upstanding citizens do not succumb to this urge.
Originally posted by Jimmy_Scythe Originally posted by Orca
Originally posted by Jimmy_Scythe I think these guys should be let free. Why? Because when I was growing up, I got in some fights that were way rougher and far larger in scale and no one got convicted of anything. Yeah, we had to spend a few nights in the county jail with real criminals, but the law never had to get any more involved than that. The problem with today's society is that it seems to think that violence is something that can be eliminated rather than an integral part of human nature. Violence is a part of nearly every young man's life and the generations before this one made room for that within some very clear and common sense guidelines. Fist fights were nothing more than business as usual, but once weapons came into play it would be assault. Simple no? On top of that, these young men had been antagonized by the white students at this school and the "authority" turned a largely blind eye. Sure, they paid lip service, but letting a kid go after he came at you with a broken beer bottle? Even in my day that would have been crossing the line? In this kind of situation, when you and yours are being threatened and the "law" is doing nothing about it, you have to take matters into your own hands. When law men break the law, there is no law. This was a case of boys being boys and the law doesn't need to get any more involved.
Dude, you should just be put away emmidiately... Get a job hippie!
Talk about throwing gas on a fire DAMM thats nuts,but im think no matter what happened in the past you realy shouldn't be beating anyone up,but thats just me,but im not a big fan of hate crime laws any how,if you kill someone it doesn't matter why you did it their still dead.
But that frase and eye for and eye has cause a lot of trouble all over the place just not here !
Trade in material assumptions for spiritual facts and make permanent progress.
NAACP isn't only for black people... infact you are more than welcome to join... AND INFACT #2 isn't the current president of the Southern NAACP currently a white woman?
Yes and her name is 'Token' white girl.
"Kill one man, and you are a murderer. Kill millions of men, and you are a conqueror. Kill them all, and you are a god." -- Jean Rostand
I think these guys should be let free. Why? Because when I was growing up, I got in some fights that were way rougher and far larger in scale and no one got convicted of anything. Yeah, we had to spend a few nights in the county jail with real criminals, but the law never had to get any more involved than that. The problem with today's society is that it seems to think that violence is something that can be eliminated rather than an integral part of human nature. Violence is a part of nearly every young man's life and the generations before this one made room for that within some very clear and common sense guidelines. Fist fights were nothing more than business as usual, but once weapons came into play it would be assault. Simple no? On top of that, these young men had been antagonized by the white students at this school and the "authority" turned a largely blind eye. Sure, they paid lip service, but letting a kid go after he came at you with a broken beer bottle? Even in my day that would have been crossing the line? In this kind of situation, when you and yours are being threatened and the "law" is doing nothing about it, you have to take matters into your own hands. When law men break the law, there is no law. This was a case of boys being boys and the law doesn't need to get any more involved.
This is the worst thing I have ever heard. So 6 guys beating up one guy is just boys being boys? That's the long and the short of it, yeah. What about the kid with a prior record of beating up his girlfriend and whipping out his penis and urinating in class? Separate incidents that require attention in and of themselves and have nothing to do with the other five young men in question. Is that just boys being boys?
The kids at the party who beat up the black kid and these 6 should all go away for the maximum. They are hooligans and nothing more. They will all end up in jail eventually anyways and they will never be a successful member of society. Nice. Someone doesn't conform to your moral values so they are completely beyond redemption and permanent failures. Seriously, you should entertain crippled kids in the burn ward....
Violence has never been a integral part of human nature. I have a whole shelf of history books that states otherwise. It is one of the worst things that humans are capable of and brings up back to the level of animals. There is a big difference between a common fist fight and assault with intent. The ability to rise above the usage of violence is what makes us human beings. It's the inability to listen to reason and compromise that makes controlled violence a necessary evil. The people that are incapable of doing so are nothing more then animals. (and that goes for them no matter what the color of their skin is) How empowering it must be to have the authority to declare who is and is not to be considered human. And I suppose that declaring the people "animals" means that we can treat them as animals and deny them the dignity deserving of humans? How then do separate yourself from them?
You are right there is a difference between a common fist fight and assault. What those 6 did was commit assault with intent to injure. But not to kill which is what they are being charged with. The white kid didn't throw the first punch and didn't get a chance to throw any punches. This incident didn't occur in a vacuum. Read the whole story and you'll see that this "innocent" white boy was antagonizing these young men. You'll see the the powers that be were sitting on their collective laurels instead of dealing with the issue. They hit him knocked him down and kicked him while he layed on the ground. That isn't a fight. That is assault. No, an assault is when you are beaten excessively. This kid had a few scrapes and looked good enough to attend a social event later. Don't you think that these 6 guys could have put this guy in traction if that was actually their intent? Oh, that's right, you don't care.
Psychologically speaking the inablity to control one's primal urges makes you an animal. The fact that they didn't maim this kid for life is all the proof of restraint that I need. They used the proper level of force to get their point across. Now the "law" is using excessive force to make an example out of these men. That is what makes us different from the animals. Resorting to violence is a primal urge and normal law abiding upstanding citizens do not succumb to this urge. So if I groped your wife right in front of you, obviously against her will, and loudly announced that you were to big of a pussy to do anything about it, you wouldn't fight me? If I repeatedly made threats that I was going to do harm to you over the space of weeks and months and the police refused to take those threats seriously even as I escalated the intimidation you wouldn't at least be tempted to take matters into your own hands? Bullshit.
I think these guys should be let free. Why? Because when I was growing up, I got in some fights that were way rougher and far larger in scale and no one got convicted of anything. Yeah, we had to spend a few nights in the county jail with real criminals, but the law never had to get any more involved than that. The problem with today's society is that it seems to think that violence is something that can be eliminated rather than an integral part of human nature. Violence is a part of nearly every young man's life and the generations before this one made room for that within some very clear and common sense guidelines. Fist fights were nothing more than business as usual, but once weapons came into play it would be assault. Simple no? On top of that, these young men had been antagonized by the white students at this school and the "authority" turned a largely blind eye. Sure, they paid lip service, but letting a kid go after he came at you with a broken beer bottle? Even in my day that would have been crossing the line? In this kind of situation, when you and yours are being threatened and the "law" is doing nothing about it, you have to take matters into your own hands. When law men break the law, there is no law. This was a case of boys being boys and the law doesn't need to get any more involved.
This is the worst thing I have ever heard. So 6 guys beating up one guy is just boys being boys? That's the long and the short of it, yeah. What about the kid with a prior record of beating up his girlfriend and whipping out his penis and urinating in class? Separate incidents that require attention in and of themselves and have nothing to do with the other five young men in question. Is that just boys being boys?
The kids at the party who beat up the black kid and these 6 should all go away for the maximum. They are hooligans and nothing more. They will all end up in jail eventually anyways and they will never be a successful member of society. Nice. Someone doesn't conform to your moral values so they are completely beyond redemption and permanent failures. Seriously, you should entertain crippled kids in the burn ward....
Violence has never been a integral part of human nature. I have a whole shelf of history books that states otherwise. It is one of the worst things that humans are capable of and brings up back to the level of animals. There is a big difference between a common fist fight and assault with intent. The ability to rise above the usage of violence is what makes us human beings. It's the inability to listen to reason and compromise that makes controlled violence a necessary evil. The people that are incapable of doing so are nothing more then animals. (and that goes for them no matter what the color of their skin is) How empowering it must be to have the authority to declare who is and is not to be considered human. And I suppose that declaring the people "animals" means that we can treat them as animals and deny them the dignity deserving of humans? How then do separate yourself from them?
You are right there is a difference between a common fist fight and assault. What those 6 did was commit assault with intent to injure. But not to kill which is what they are being charged with. The white kid didn't throw the first punch and didn't get a chance to throw any punches. This incident didn't occur in a vacuum. Read the whole story and you'll see that this "innocent" white boy was antagonizing these young men. You'll see the the powers that be were sitting on their collective laurels instead of dealing with the issue. They hit him knocked him down and kicked him while he layed on the ground. That isn't a fight. That is assault. No, an assault is when you are beaten excessively. This kid had a few scrapes and looked good enough to attend a social event later. Don't you think that these 6 guys could have put this guy in traction if that was actually their intent? Oh, that's right, you don't care.
Psychologically speaking the inablity to control one's primal urges makes you an animal. The fact that they didn't maim this kid for life is all the proof of restraint that I need. They used the proper level of force to get their point across. Now the "law" is using excessive force to make an example out of these men. That is what makes us different from the animals. Resorting to violence is a primal urge and normal law abiding upstanding citizens do not succumb to this urge. So if I groped your wife right in front of you, obviously against her will, and loudly announced that you were to big of a pussy to do anything about it, you wouldn't fight me? If I repeatedly made threats that I was going to do harm to you over the space of weeks and months and the police refused to take those threats seriously even as I escalated the intimidation you wouldn't at least be tempted to take matters into your own hands? Bullshit.
No, i wouldnt be temptered to take matters in my own hands. When you were on my doorstep and actually made matters a matter, i would take action. But then it would be self-defense and within the law.
You are an ignorant hooligan yourself, case closed.
The fact you think people would even do so, is just frightening... You make it sound like it is everyday life for every woman and man in the world. If i lived in a neighboorhood with a guy that would act like that, and the police didnt do anything about it. I would move, with no hesitation... Because if I stayed, I would immediately send a message to the person who threatens me, that I dont care what happens... Which is not the case.
NAACP isn't only for black people... infact you are more than welcome to join... AND INFACT #2 isn't the current president of the Southern NAACP currently a white woman?
Yes and her name is 'Token' white girl.
Trade in material assumptions for spiritual facts and make permanent progress.
No, i wouldnt be temptered to take matters in my own hands. When you were on my doorstep and actually made matters a matter, i would take action. But then it would be self-defense and within the law.
Seriously, you have extremely limited rights to self defense. The state wants you dependent upon its protection so giving you any rights of self defense would be counterproductive.
You are an ignorant hooligan yourself, case closed.
Still pissed about the hippie comment huh? It was a JOKE! I understand your point of view, I just find it to be horrifyingly unrealistic. Peace and love are beautiful ideals, but they can't stand up to the disheartening ugliness of reality.
You make it sound like it is everyday life for every woman and man in the world.
I wouldn't exactly say every day.... Unfortunately, there comes a time in most people's lives when they have to deal with a potentially violent situation. Most times, violence can be avoided. When you're dealing with a drunk or a standoff of frustration, for instance. Other times, it becomes increasingly clear that violence will occur and the only option is to seize the initiative and minimize the damages. This is what I feel these young men did. They used a small amount of force to let their aggressors know that they were both willing and capable of defending themselves if need be. If the law hadn't gotten involved, I doubt it would have gone any further than that.
If i lived in a neighboorhood with a guy that would act like that, and the police didnt do anything about it. I would move, with no hesitation...
The problem I have with this solution is that it avoids the problem rather than deals with it. Sure, you're no longer in danger but now someone else may potentially be. I think there's a matter of ethics at work here that you don't seem to fully grasp.
You must be willing and able to commit violence or spend your entire life at the mercy of those that are. Case closed.
The problem I have with this solution is that it avoids the problem rather than deals with it. Sure, you're no longer in danger but now someone else may potentially be. I think there's a matter of ethics at work here that you don't seem to fully grasp. You must be willing and able to commit violence or spend your entire life at the mercy of those that are. Case closed.
Problem is that I have actually have taken courses with Philosophy and ethics in my education. Unlike you.
The only time where violence would ever come in handy, is when dealing with nature. That's the same viewpoint by most, if not all major philosophers.
Problem is that we are living in a modern world and we arent in the "nature state" of evolution anymore. Atleast I am not, and the people at that high school most definetly weren't either.
Sure, people can have personal ethics, I have myself... That some other people may not share. But the community we live upon does not accept violence in any form. If you want to change that, be my guest. But take the punishment, the majority of that community puts upon you. That's the rick of living in a civilized world... Be my guest and move to africa or far east asia, where anarchy and civil war roams.
In Iowa, for instance, a fist fight is considered a misdemeanour. Simple assault: $25 fine and usually a night in the county jail.
I remember sitting in traffic court in Illinois one time and a girl went before the judge for grabbing another girl and pushing her. She faced a possible year of prison....
Be my guest and move to Africa or far east Asia, where anarchy and civil war roams.
All that education and you didn't know to capitalize Africa or Asia?
It's interesting that you bring this up since I just got done reading Joseph Conrad's "Heart of Darkness." It postulates that the nature of man is savage and that when separated from civilization, man reverts to it's natural state. It goes a bit deeper than that since it also suggests that civilization is just a facade that we hide behind to pursue our own interests. Conrad does provide a middle road of pursuing integrity and honesty in and of itself.
BTW, what particular ethical model do you adhere to? Kant's Deontological model? Consequentialism? Perhaps the existentialism of Sarte or Nietzsche? While I agree with some of the ideas of each, my personal ethic is my own. I think it can best be summed up as a combination of Benjamin Franklin's A Dissertation on Liberty and Necessity, Pleasure and Pain, and Emerson's "Self-Reliance" essay. That oversimplifies, of course, but it will have to do.
I would love to live in a world where the "light" of civilization were more than an illusion. But at the end of the day, we're like the Captain at the end of Lord of The Flies, charged with the care of children who grew to the realization of the human condition too soon and wondering what higher authority is going to rescue you from the deadly game you've been playing on the open seas of the Pacific....
All that education and you didn't know to capitalize Africa or Asia?
That's just cheap.
It's interesting that you bring this up since I just got done reading Joseph Conrad's "Heart of Darkness." It postulates that the nature of man is savage and that when separated from civilization, man reverts to it's natural state. It goes a bit deeper than that since it also suggests that civilization is just a facade that we hide behind to pursue our own interests. Conrad does provide a middle road of pursuing integrity and honesty in and of itself.
Yes, we live in a civilized world in the interest of our own preservation. But those kids were rebelling... whether it were the black or white kids.
BTW, what particular ethical model do you adhere to? Kant's Deontological model? Consequentialism? Perhaps the existentialism of Sarte or Nietzsche? While I agree with some of the ideas of each, my personal ethic is my own. I think it can best be summed up as a combination of Benjamin Franklin's A Dissertation on Liberty and Necessity, Pleasure and Pain, and Emerson's "Self-Reliance" essay. That oversimplifies, of course, but it will have to do.
You can't use the theories of people who lived for 2000 years ago, or 20 years ago, as the world has evolved. You can only learn from their knowledge, and then built your own ideas.
I would love to live in a world where the "light" of civilization were more than an illusion. But at the end of the day, we're like the Captain at the end of Lord of The Flies, charged with the care of children who grew to the realization of the human condition too soon and wondering what higher authority is going to rescue you from the deadly game you've been playing on the open seas of the Pacific....
But those kids were rebelling... whether it were the black or white kids.
I've actually been deliberately trying to keep race out of my arguments. However, this statement introduces a question that can't ignore the factor of race. Were they rebelling or did the community at large eject them and force them to establish boundaries between their own community and the larger white community? This question is a lot deeper than the thinly veiled bigotry that we've been bantering about here.
You can't use the theories of people who lived for 2000 years ago, or 20 years ago, as the world has evolved. You can only learn from their knowledge, and then built your own ideas.
I agree and I only used the references to Franklin and Emerson to establish a similarity with my own beliefs that you might be familiar with. I had those ideas long before I came across those particular works and they don't perfectly mirror my own views. I just wanted to sum up rather than make a post the size of a graduate thesis paper.
I don't read story books.
Speaking of cheap....
Way to degrade the analogy without actually addressing it. Being an educated person, I'm sure that your critical thinking skills allowed you to get my point.
No, i wouldnt be temptered to take matters in my own hands. When you were on my doorstep and actually made matters a matter, i would take action. But then it would be self-defense and within the law. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!! Seriously, you have extremely limited rights to self defense. The state wants you dependent upon its protection so giving you any rights of self defense would be counterproductive. I can shoot you for trespassing on my property according to state laws. So yes I can defend myself. If the white kid had kicked the crap out of the 6 black kids after they attacked him that would be justifiable self defense. What the 6 black kids did was assault. There is no verbal taunt that justifies attacking someone. If you don't like it then you should really learn the law. If you sexually assaulted my wife then you would be dead, end of story but you can't compare physically assaulting someone with verbal assault. They are not comparable. If you whistled at my wife and said rude comments we would just move on because your words have no power over me at all. If someone wants to be pathetic enough to make themselves look like an idiot by saying stupid stuff then let them. Haven't you ever heard the old saying sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me? Those 6 black kids should of listened to that. Once again there is never a REASON to escalate a Verbal Fight into a Physical Fight! You are an ignorant hooligan yourself, case closed. Still pissed about the hippie comment huh? It was a JOKE! I understand your point of view, I just find it to be horrifyingly unrealistic. Peace and love are beautiful ideals, but they can't stand up to the disheartening ugliness of reality. You make it sound like it is everyday life for every woman and man in the world. I wouldn't exactly say every day.... Unfortunately, there comes a time in most people's lives when they have to deal with a potentially violent situation. Most times, violence can be avoided. When you're dealing with a drunk or a standoff of frustration, for instance. Other times, it becomes increasingly clear that violence will occur and the only option is to seize the initiative and minimize the damages. This is what I feel these young men did. They used a small amount of force to let their aggressors know that they were both willing and capable of defending themselves if need be. If the law hadn't gotten involved, I doubt it would have gone any further than that. The correct method would of been contacting their local NAACP chapter or similar group or a Lawyer and telling what was going on. Then it would of been on the School, administrators, and white students that were causing the problem. Instead the kids tried to use vigilante justice which is illegal. They didn't defend themselves from any threat of physical violence. Instead they became thugs and tried to make their point with their fists. Maybe some people can not get their point across without resorting to violence but that doesn't make the violence legal or morally right. If i lived in a neighboorhood with a guy that would act like that, and the police didnt do anything about it. I would move, with no hesitation... The problem I have with this solution is that it avoids the problem rather than deals with it. Sure, you're no longer in danger but now someone else may potentially be. I think there's a matter of ethics at work here that you don't seem to fully grasp. You must be willing and able to commit violence or spend your entire life at the mercy of those that are. Case closed. You must live a horrible life. I have been threatened with violence dozens of times in my life and I have never had to throw a punch. Why? Because I know that it isn't the answer to any problem. Guess what as well, I have never been beaten up either. The only place I got violent was on the wrestling mat when I was in highschool and in combat training in the Navy. I feel extremely sorry for someone who feels that violence is a necessary component of their everyday life.
My opinions: 1. There is definitely a lack of equal justice, on both sides. Those black adults ( tired of seeing them portrayed as poor teens when they were all over 18 except for one or two) should be sentenced to the maximun allowed. Those white kids who hung the nooses in the tree should be charged with either a hate crime, incitement to riot, or both; and should be sentenced to the maximum allowed. 2. Al Sharpton is a racist bigot, and does nothing unless it gets his face and loud mouth on the news or in papers. 3. Jesse Jackson, who does have faults, for the most part tries to be a mediator between parties and tries to find a peaceful solution. 4. Although I respect the NAACP for what it is stated to stand for, it has become a political tool for the Sharpton's and Farrahkan's of the world to use in their agendas. Also, if I were to start the NAAWP or the NAAHP, I'd automatically be labeled a racist and refused permission for my foundation to exist. Last time I checked, white people can't get a scholarship from the NAACP.
NAACP isn't only for black people... infact you are more than welcome to join... AND INFACT #2 isn't the current president of the Southern NAACP currently a white woman?
Well, I'll admit it's been awhile since I've looked at the internal structure of the NAACP, so if they allow whites to apply for ( and actually receive) aid, then that's great. However, It's funny how few white people would think about applying for aid from a foundation targeted at "colored" people.
However, my point still stands. If I named a foundation the National Association for the Advancement of White People ( I'd say caucasian, but then the acronyms would conflict), I would be denied the ability to have that foundation under that name, and would be labeled a racist.
Sad fact: a large group of black, hispanic, asian, whatever assemble together in this country, it's a protest or demonstration. A large group of white people assemble, everyone starts throwing around the race card.
And that's the point with the "Jenn 6" fiasco. It should not have had anything to do with race, on either side. It should have been a criminal matter in both cases, and handled as such in both cases.
A prime example of things Sharpton says that make me laugh: he said something along the lines of "Bell doesn't want anything to happen here that would disparage his good name.".
Newsflash: the punk and 5 of his pussy friends just beat the crap out of 1 kid. I'd say his name was pretty fuckin' disparaged by his own doing.
If Sharpton wanted justice, he would be calling for the white kids who hung nooses and the white adults who beat the black kid to be brought up on charges (and I would wholeheartedly agree with him in that case). However, he is calling for the black offenders (adult and juvenile) to be released and walk away. Shows exactly what Sharpton thinks of "equality".
Originally posted by Jimmy_Scythe I've actually been deliberately trying to keep race out of my arguments.
If I didn't write the fact that I was talking about both sides of the races. I know I would get a response saying "What about the white kids, weren't they rebelling?"
That's the only reason I wrote both races after the sentences.
Way to degrade the analogy without actually addressing it. Being an educated person, I'm sure that your critical thinking skills allowed you to get my point.
Lord of the Flies is a fiction book, that presents a given situation under a given condition. The kids in Lord of the Flies is trapped in a nature state environment, and have no means to escape.
These kids could have gotten out of this by other means than violence.
The kids in Lord of the Flies is trapped in a nature state environment, and have no means to escape.
And what of the captain who is not in a nature state but still locked in the savagery of WWII? That's why the final image of the book is so haunting. It reveals the facade of civilization by displaying the parallels between the power struggles of these boys and the same power struggles of so-called civilization.
These kids could have gotten out of this by other means than violence.
Maybe, but the reason the author used a group of children was to place them as close to their humanity as possible. The boys, being innocent, don't have nearly the same level of inhibitions that normal adults have. They haven't had the opportunity to fully acquire these inhibitions. Unlike the character Kurtz in "Heart of Darkness" there is no gradual decline. At the heart of the human condition is the simplest amoral truth: self interest rules all.
While I will concede that these men could have gone to a larger organization for help, the sloth of bureaucracy would have probably delayed any help until the situation had spiraled into something much worse than this little scuffle. Furthermore, If you get attacked with a broken beer bottle and threatened with a shotgun within the space of a week and the authorities not only do nothing, but try to charge you with the theft of the gun that you had to wrestle out of the hands of your assailant, are you really going to be willing to wait for some outside interest to eventually get around to your problem?
And please don't tell me that he could have left the shotgun with the police since we all know how the police would react to a young black man carrying a shotgun into the lobby of the police station. Sure, he could call ahead but what guarantee would he have the police wouldn't kill him and destroy all evidence of his previous call? Up to this point, these young men were given no reason whatsoever to trust the authorities here. Take a moment to walk a mile in someone else's shoes for a change rather than just passing questionable knee-jerk judgments.
I'm White. I'm gonna hold my opinion for now because it seems with every post I'm hearing about new information and its obvious i don't have enough of the story to go on.
You dont need to hold your opinion if you were not going to be a douchebag about it.
If its your opinion that the black kids deserve 20 years in prison for beating up a kid or if its anything about the jena 6 case itself then fine.. speak your mind..
If its your opinion is about you hating the Reverand and the NAACP and groups of black people ... then .... hold your opinion
I hate it when you argue about race because you argue in such huge hyperboles and leading statements.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
Originally posted by Jimmy_Scythe TFurthermore, If you get attacked with a broken beer bottle and threatened with a shotgun within the space of a week and the authorities not only do nothing, but try to charge you with the theft of the gun that you had to wrestle out of the hands of your assailant, are you really going to be willing to wait for some outside interest to eventually get around to your problem?
No, I would move to another neighbourhood, city, state or country. If I thought the people who stood for law and order in my area didn't live up to what I would expect.
Comments
What's your Wu Name?
Donovan --> Wu Name = Violent Knight
Methane47 --> Wu Name = Thunderous Leader
"Some people call me the walking plank, 'cuz any where you go... Death is right behind you.."
<i>ME<i>
Which means they should be protesting the fact that the White kid got off easy. Not trying to get some criminals back on the street. which is what those 6 are. Especially the one that they are most in up in arms about. The one with 4 prior convictions for juvenile crime. Including a prior violent crime. This isn't the good boy that they are trying to make him sound like.
War Beta Tester
The kids at the party who beat up the black kid and these 6 should all go away for the maximum. They are hooligans and nothing more. They will all end up in jail eventually anyways and they will never be a successful member of society. Nice. Someone doesn't conform to your moral values so they are completely beyond redemption and permanent failures. Seriously, you should entertain crippled kids in the burn ward....
Violence has never been a integral part of human nature. I have a whole shelf of history books that states otherwise. It is one of the worst things that humans are capable of and brings up back to the level of animals. There is a big difference between a common fist fight and assault with intent. The ability to rise above the usage of violence is what makes us human beings. It's the inability to listen to reason and compromise that makes controlled violence a necessary evil. The people that are incapable of doing so are nothing more then animals. (and that goes for them no matter what the color of their skin is) How empowering it must be to have the authority to declare who is and is not to be considered human. And I suppose that declaring the people "animals" means that we can treat them as animals and deny them the dignity deserving of humans? How then do separate yourself from them?
I remember reading back that someone tried to apply for a scholarship from the NAACP and after talking to them he mentioned he was white and asked if that was a problem. They wouldn't help him and called him a bunch of names etc.Also the NAACP doesn't exactly come off in a very good light when you have people like Jessie Jackson at these events and then saying a Presidential Candidate "is acting white" because Obama wasn't all over this event. How is that not a racist hateful remark?
The same thing happened when Bill Cosby spoke out against thug behavior in the black community. Any Black person who speaks out against this type of behavior is automatically labeled as "acting white". Which is such horrible racism.
War Beta Tester
The kids at the party who beat up the black kid and these 6 should all go away for the maximum. They are hooligans and nothing more. They will all end up in jail eventually anyways and they will never be a successful member of society. Nice. Someone doesn't conform to your moral values so they are completely beyond redemption and permanent failures. Seriously, you should entertain crippled kids in the burn ward....
Violence has never been a integral part of human nature. I have a whole shelf of history books that states otherwise. It is one of the worst things that humans are capable of and brings up back to the level of animals. There is a big difference between a common fist fight and assault with intent. The ability to rise above the usage of violence is what makes us human beings. It's the inability to listen to reason and compromise that makes controlled violence a necessary evil. The people that are incapable of doing so are nothing more then animals. (and that goes for them no matter what the color of their skin is) How empowering it must be to have the authority to declare who is and is not to be considered human. And I suppose that declaring the people "animals" means that we can treat them as animals and deny them the dignity deserving of humans? How then do separate yourself from them?
You are right there is a difference between a common fist fight and assault. What those 6 did was commit assault with intent to injure. The white kid didn't throw the first punch and didn't get a chance to throw any punches. They hit him knocked him down and kicked him while he layed on the ground. That isn't a fight. That is assault.Psychologically speaking the inablity to control one's primal urges makes you an animal. That is what makes us different from the animals. Resorting to violence is a primal urge and normal law abiding upstanding citizens do not succumb to this urge.
War Beta Tester
Dude, you should just be put away emmidiately...
Get a job hippie!
I've got a job, and I got an education.
You sound like one who has nothing.
Futilez - Mature MMORPG Community
Correcting people since birth.
Talk about throwing gas on a fire DAMM thats nuts,but im think no matter what happened in the past you realy shouldn't be beating anyone up,but thats just me,but im not a big fan of hate crime laws any how,if you kill someone it doesn't matter why you did it their still dead.
But that frase and eye for and eye has cause a lot of trouble all over the place just not here !
Trade in material assumptions for spiritual facts and make permanent progress.
Damn it guys, Its called Assault and Battery.
Yes and her name is 'Token' white girl.
"Kill one man, and you are a murderer. Kill millions of men, and you are a conqueror. Kill them all, and you are a god."
-- Jean Rostand
The kids at the party who beat up the black kid and these 6 should all go away for the maximum. They are hooligans and nothing more. They will all end up in jail eventually anyways and they will never be a successful member of society. Nice. Someone doesn't conform to your moral values so they are completely beyond redemption and permanent failures. Seriously, you should entertain crippled kids in the burn ward....
Violence has never been a integral part of human nature. I have a whole shelf of history books that states otherwise. It is one of the worst things that humans are capable of and brings up back to the level of animals. There is a big difference between a common fist fight and assault with intent. The ability to rise above the usage of violence is what makes us human beings. It's the inability to listen to reason and compromise that makes controlled violence a necessary evil. The people that are incapable of doing so are nothing more then animals. (and that goes for them no matter what the color of their skin is) How empowering it must be to have the authority to declare who is and is not to be considered human. And I suppose that declaring the people "animals" means that we can treat them as animals and deny them the dignity deserving of humans? How then do separate yourself from them?
You are right there is a difference between a common fist fight and assault. What those 6 did was commit assault with intent to injure. But not to kill which is what they are being charged with. The white kid didn't throw the first punch and didn't get a chance to throw any punches. This incident didn't occur in a vacuum. Read the whole story and you'll see that this "innocent" white boy was antagonizing these young men. You'll see the the powers that be were sitting on their collective laurels instead of dealing with the issue. They hit him knocked him down and kicked him while he layed on the ground. That isn't a fight. That is assault. No, an assault is when you are beaten excessively. This kid had a few scrapes and looked good enough to attend a social event later. Don't you think that these 6 guys could have put this guy in traction if that was actually their intent? Oh, that's right, you don't care.Psychologically speaking the inablity to control one's primal urges makes you an animal. The fact that they didn't maim this kid for life is all the proof of restraint that I need. They used the proper level of force to get their point across. Now the "law" is using excessive force to make an example out of these men. That is what makes us different from the animals. Resorting to violence is a primal urge and normal law abiding upstanding citizens do not succumb to this urge. So if I groped your wife right in front of you, obviously against her will, and loudly announced that you were to big of a pussy to do anything about it, you wouldn't fight me? If I repeatedly made threats that I was going to do harm to you over the space of weeks and months and the police refused to take those threats seriously even as I escalated the intimidation you wouldn't at least be tempted to take matters into your own hands? Bullshit.
No, i wouldnt be temptered to take matters in my own hands. When you were on my doorstep and actually made matters a matter, i would take action. But then it would be self-defense and within the law.
You are an ignorant hooligan yourself, case closed.
The fact you think people would even do so, is just frightening... You make it sound like it is everyday life for every woman and man in the world. If i lived in a neighboorhood with a guy that would act like that, and the police didnt do anything about it. I would move, with no hesitation... Because if I stayed, I would immediately send a message to the person who threatens me, that I dont care what happens... Which is not the case.
Futilez - Mature MMORPG Community
Correcting people since birth.
Yes and her name is 'Token' white girl.
Trade in material assumptions for spiritual facts and make permanent progress.
No, i wouldnt be temptered to take matters in my own hands. When you were on my doorstep and actually made matters a matter, i would take action. But then it would be self-defense and within the law.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!
Seriously, you have extremely limited rights to self defense. The state wants you dependent upon its protection so giving you any rights of self defense would be counterproductive.
You are an ignorant hooligan yourself, case closed.
Still pissed about the hippie comment huh? It was a JOKE! I understand your point of view, I just find it to be horrifyingly unrealistic. Peace and love are beautiful ideals, but they can't stand up to the disheartening ugliness of reality.
You make it sound like it is everyday life for every woman and man in the world.
I wouldn't exactly say every day.... Unfortunately, there comes a time in most people's lives when they have to deal with a potentially violent situation. Most times, violence can be avoided. When you're dealing with a drunk or a standoff of frustration, for instance. Other times, it becomes increasingly clear that violence will occur and the only option is to seize the initiative and minimize the damages. This is what I feel these young men did. They used a small amount of force to let their aggressors know that they were both willing and capable of defending themselves if need be. If the law hadn't gotten involved, I doubt it would have gone any further than that.
If i lived in a neighboorhood with a guy that would act like that, and the police didnt do anything about it. I would move, with no hesitation...
The problem I have with this solution is that it avoids the problem rather than deals with it. Sure, you're no longer in danger but now someone else may potentially be. I think there's a matter of ethics at work here that you don't seem to fully grasp.
You must be willing and able to commit violence or spend your entire life at the mercy of those that are. Case closed.
Read up on what assault is. Case Closed.
Problem is that I have actually have taken courses with Philosophy and ethics in my education. Unlike you.
The only time where violence would ever come in handy, is when dealing with nature. That's the same viewpoint by most, if not all major philosophers.
Problem is that we are living in a modern world and we arent in the "nature state" of evolution anymore. Atleast I am not, and the people at that high school most definetly weren't either.
Sure, people can have personal ethics, I have myself... That some other people may not share. But the community we live upon does not accept violence in any form. If you want to change that, be my guest. But take the punishment, the majority of that community puts upon you. That's the rick of living in a civilized world... Be my guest and move to africa or far east asia, where anarchy and civil war roams.
Futilez - Mature MMORPG Community
Correcting people since birth.
It varies from state to state.
In Iowa, for instance, a fist fight is considered a misdemeanour. Simple assault: $25 fine and usually a night in the county jail.
I remember sitting in traffic court in Illinois one time and a girl went before the judge for grabbing another girl and pushing her. She faced a possible year of prison....
Be my guest and move to Africa or far east Asia, where anarchy and civil war roams.
All that education and you didn't know to capitalize Africa or Asia?
It's interesting that you bring this up since I just got done reading Joseph Conrad's "Heart of Darkness." It postulates that the nature of man is savage and that when separated from civilization, man reverts to it's natural state. It goes a bit deeper than that since it also suggests that civilization is just a facade that we hide behind to pursue our own interests. Conrad does provide a middle road of pursuing integrity and honesty in and of itself.
BTW, what particular ethical model do you adhere to? Kant's Deontological model? Consequentialism? Perhaps the existentialism of Sarte or Nietzsche? While I agree with some of the ideas of each, my personal ethic is my own. I think it can best be summed up as a combination of Benjamin Franklin's A Dissertation on Liberty and Necessity, Pleasure and Pain, and Emerson's "Self-Reliance" essay. That oversimplifies, of course, but it will have to do.
I would love to live in a world where the "light" of civilization were more than an illusion. But at the end of the day, we're like the Captain at the end of Lord of The Flies, charged with the care of children who grew to the realization of the human condition too soon and wondering what higher authority is going to rescue you from the deadly game you've been playing on the open seas of the Pacific....
All that education and you didn't know to capitalize Africa or Asia?
That's just cheap.
It's interesting that you bring this up since I just got done reading Joseph Conrad's "Heart of Darkness." It postulates that the nature of man is savage and that when separated from civilization, man reverts to it's natural state. It goes a bit deeper than that since it also suggests that civilization is just a facade that we hide behind to pursue our own interests. Conrad does provide a middle road of pursuing integrity and honesty in and of itself.
Yes, we live in a civilized world in the interest of our own preservation. But those kids were rebelling... whether it were the black or white kids.
BTW, what particular ethical model do you adhere to? Kant's Deontological model? Consequentialism? Perhaps the existentialism of Sarte or Nietzsche? While I agree with some of the ideas of each, my personal ethic is my own. I think it can best be summed up as a combination of Benjamin Franklin's A Dissertation on Liberty and Necessity, Pleasure and Pain, and Emerson's "Self-Reliance" essay. That oversimplifies, of course, but it will have to do.
You can't use the theories of people who lived for 2000 years ago, or 20 years ago, as the world has evolved. You can only learn from their knowledge, and then built your own ideas.
I would love to live in a world where the "light" of civilization were more than an illusion. But at the end of the day, we're like the Captain at the end of Lord of The Flies, charged with the care of children who grew to the realization of the human condition too soon and wondering what higher authority is going to rescue you from the deadly game you've been playing on the open seas of the Pacific....
I don't read story books.
Futilez - Mature MMORPG Community
Correcting people since birth.
But those kids were rebelling... whether it were the black or white kids.
I've actually been deliberately trying to keep race out of my arguments. However, this statement introduces a question that can't ignore the factor of race. Were they rebelling or did the community at large eject them and force them to establish boundaries between their own community and the larger white community? This question is a lot deeper than the thinly veiled bigotry that we've been bantering about here.
You can't use the theories of people who lived for 2000 years ago, or 20 years ago, as the world has evolved. You can only learn from their knowledge, and then built your own ideas.
I agree and I only used the references to Franklin and Emerson to establish a similarity with my own beliefs that you might be familiar with. I had those ideas long before I came across those particular works and they don't perfectly mirror my own views. I just wanted to sum up rather than make a post the size of a graduate thesis paper.
I don't read story books.
Speaking of cheap....
Way to degrade the analogy without actually addressing it. Being an educated person, I'm sure that your critical thinking skills allowed you to get my point.
War Beta Tester
Well, I'll admit it's been awhile since I've looked at the internal structure of the NAACP, so if they allow whites to apply for ( and actually receive) aid, then that's great. However, It's funny how few white people would think about applying for aid from a foundation targeted at "colored" people.
However, my point still stands. If I named a foundation the National Association for the Advancement of White People ( I'd say caucasian, but then the acronyms would conflict), I would be denied the ability to have that foundation under that name, and would be labeled a racist.
Sad fact: a large group of black, hispanic, asian, whatever assemble together in this country, it's a protest or demonstration. A large group of white people assemble, everyone starts throwing around the race card.
And that's the point with the "Jenn 6" fiasco. It should not have had anything to do with race, on either side. It should have been a criminal matter in both cases, and handled as such in both cases.
A prime example of things Sharpton says that make me laugh: he said something along the lines of "Bell doesn't want anything to happen here that would disparage his good name.".
Newsflash: the punk and 5 of his pussy friends just beat the crap out of 1 kid. I'd say his name was pretty fuckin' disparaged by his own doing.
If Sharpton wanted justice, he would be calling for the white kids who hung nooses and the white adults who beat the black kid to be brought up on charges (and I would wholeheartedly agree with him in that case). However, he is calling for the black offenders (adult and juvenile) to be released and walk away. Shows exactly what Sharpton thinks of "equality".
If I didn't write the fact that I was talking about both sides of the races. I know I would get a response saying "What about the white kids, weren't they rebelling?"
That's the only reason I wrote both races after the sentences.
Lord of the Flies is a fiction book, that presents a given situation under a given condition.
The kids in Lord of the Flies is trapped in a nature state environment, and have no means to escape.
These kids could have gotten out of this by other means than violence.
Futilez - Mature MMORPG Community
Correcting people since birth.
The kids in Lord of the Flies is trapped in a nature state environment, and have no means to escape.
And what of the captain who is not in a nature state but still locked in the savagery of WWII? That's why the final image of the book is so haunting. It reveals the facade of civilization by displaying the parallels between the power struggles of these boys and the same power struggles of so-called civilization.
These kids could have gotten out of this by other means than violence.
Maybe, but the reason the author used a group of children was to place them as close to their humanity as possible. The boys, being innocent, don't have nearly the same level of inhibitions that normal adults have. They haven't had the opportunity to fully acquire these inhibitions. Unlike the character Kurtz in "Heart of Darkness" there is no gradual decline. At the heart of the human condition is the simplest amoral truth: self interest rules all.
While I will concede that these men could have gone to a larger organization for help, the sloth of bureaucracy would have probably delayed any help until the situation had spiraled into something much worse than this little scuffle. Furthermore, If you get attacked with a broken beer bottle and threatened with a shotgun within the space of a week and the authorities not only do nothing, but try to charge you with the theft of the gun that you had to wrestle out of the hands of your assailant, are you really going to be willing to wait for some outside interest to eventually get around to your problem?
And please don't tell me that he could have left the shotgun with the police since we all know how the police would react to a young black man carrying a shotgun into the lobby of the police station. Sure, he could call ahead but what guarantee would he have the police wouldn't kill him and destroy all evidence of his previous call? Up to this point, these young men were given no reason whatsoever to trust the authorities here. Take a moment to walk a mile in someone else's shoes for a change rather than just passing questionable knee-jerk judgments.
If its your opinion that the black kids deserve 20 years in prison for beating up a kid or if its anything about the jena 6 case itself then fine.. speak your mind..
If its your opinion is about you hating the Reverand and the NAACP and groups of black people ... then .... hold your opinion
I hate it when you argue about race because you argue in such huge hyperboles and leading statements.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
No, I would move to another neighbourhood, city, state or country. If I thought the people who stood for law and order in my area didn't live up to what I would expect.
Futilez - Mature MMORPG Community
Correcting people since birth.