On 12/14/09 14:11, Darren New wrote:
>>>> they're pissing off the "moderate" majority,
>>>
>>> Have you evidence that the majority are moderate? I used to think that
>>
>> "Can you prove you didn't commit the crime?"
>
> Not at all. See Prop 8.

	First, I presume that by invoking Prop 8, you're not talking about 
Muslims per se, but about religious folks.

	So let's talk about African Americans: 70% of them voted in favor of 
Prop 8 - a higher percentage than some religious groups did (e.g. 
Catholics).

	So you're willing to say that the majority of African Americans are not 
moderate?

> Sure, and I see a whole bunch of pictures of people holding up signs,
> and I see riots and people burning down buildings, and etc.

	The majority of them do this? I wonder who runs the schools, police 
force, hospitals, etc? Would they have time to take care of those 
endeavors while they're busy rioting?

	If you merely want to point out that a big portion of them do this, I 
once again invoke African Americans, and point you to their really high 
over-representation in violent crimes in the US. In 2005, for example, 
normalized to their proportion of their population, African Americans 
committed more than 7 times as many homicides as their white counterparts.

> I thought the idea that there would actually be enough votes to modify
> the CA constitution to treat gays as sub-human would never have passed
> either.

	I'm sure the religious crowd would have been surprised as well, because 
that's not what happened.

	If you want to have a reasonable conversation, it helps if you don't 
editorialize by using words like "subhuman", because I'll be happy to 
counter-obfuscate.

-- 
If you think nobody cares, try missing a couple of payments.

Post a reply to this message

Neeum Zawan wrote:
> While many like Sharia, they don't view it in the absolutes that you 
> do. 

I never said anything about how I view Sharia. :-)

Those are good links. Thanks!

(Note that I never said it goes one way or another. I just said it's 
worthwhile to find out.)


-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
   much longer being almost empty than almost full.

Post a reply to this message

Neeum Zawan wrote:
>     So you're willing to say that the majority of African Americans are 
> not moderate?

I have no idea what's up with that. People whose fathers weren't allowed to 
marry who they wanted because of prejudice are voting to remove the right to 
marry from people because of their prejudice.

>> Sure, and I see a whole bunch of pictures of people holding up signs,
>> and I see riots and people burning down buildings, and etc.
> 
>     The majority of them do this?

I didn't say they do. Don't put words in my mouth. I said "have you any 
evidence?"

>     If you merely want to point out that a big portion of them do this, 

No. Why do you assume me asking a question is also me asserting the answer?

> I once again invoke African Americans, and point you to their really 
> high over-representation in violent crimes in the US. In 2005, for 
> example, normalized to their proportion of their population, African 
> Americans committed more than 7 times as many homicides as their white 
> counterparts.

I have no idea what point you're trying to make.

>     If you want to have a reasonable conversation, it helps if you don't 
> editorialize by using words like "subhuman", because I'll be happy to 
> counter-obfuscate.

I'm equating it with every other bit of politicized prejudice.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
   much longer being almost empty than almost full.

Post a reply to this message

On 12/14/09 21:49, Darren New wrote:
> Neeum Zawan wrote:
>> While many like Sharia, they don't view it in the absolutes that you do.
>
> I never said anything about how I view Sharia. :-)

	I think you misunderstood. You said:

"or that Sharia should replace democracy as a governmental form"

	That's suggestive of a mutual exclusion. I was merely pointing out that 
they didn't seem to feel that way.

> (Note that I never said it goes one way or another. I just said it's
> worthwhile to find out.)

	True...

-- 
If you think nobody cares, try missing a couple of payments.

Post a reply to this message

On 12/14/09 21:55, Darren New wrote:
> Neeum Zawan wrote:
>> So you're willing to say that the majority of African Americans are
>> not moderate?
>
> I have no idea what's up with that. People whose fathers weren't allowed

	Nor do I.

	Actually, I found a report that suggested that the numbers were 
overstated, and it was more like 57-59% (or near there) instead of 70%. 
The report suggested that religion was most likely the issue for them as 
well. I just looked at the summary - didn't bother reading it.

>>> Sure, and I see a whole bunch of pictures of people holding up signs,
>>> and I see riots and people burning down buildings, and etc.
>>
>> The majority of them do this?
>
> I didn't say they do. Don't put words in my mouth. I said "have you any
> evidence?"

	And I didn't put words in your mouth.<G>

	It went like this: You asked if I had evidence that the majority were 
moderate. I clarified by saying I used the word moderate in terms of 
violence. You responded with examples of violence. I responded with a 
remark (perhaps a bit sarcastic) suggesting that those examples could 
hardly be used in a discussion of the majority.

>> If you merely want to point out that a big portion of them do this,
>
> No. Why do you assume me asking a question is also me asserting the answer?

	Pre-emptive strike. Bad habit of mine when it comes to Internet 
arguments. It usually goes along the lines of me responding to precisely 
what the person says, with him tweaking what he said a bit so that my 
response is no longer valid, and so I have to respond again to the 
tweaked version. I got tired of this so I just go for pre-emptive 
strikes when I feel that what the person said was not what he meant.<G> 
Usually not a big issue on these newsgroups.

>> I once again invoke African Americans, and point you to their really
>> high over-representation in violent crimes in the US. In 2005, for
>> example, normalized to their proportion of their population, African
>> Americans committed more than 7 times as many homicides as their white
>> counterparts.
>
> I have no idea what point you're trying to make.

	Oh, I was just wondering if you'd say "sure, maybe not the majority, 
but it seems a substantial portion of them", and I was drawing an 
analogy with African Americans. Since the overall topic was about laws 
being passed, I was curious as to what laws targeting African Americans 
would be considered OK if their behavior was bad enough. (Part of the 
unnecessary pre-emptive strike referred to above).

	Reading it all again, it's clear you were just thinking aloud/asking 
questions. Still - it's a public forum, and just because it's a reply to 
you doesn't mean all of it has to be for your eyes. I can throw out 
ideas as well.<G>

>> If you want to have a reasonable conversation, it helps if you don't
>> editorialize by using words like "subhuman", because I'll be happy to
>> counter-obfuscate.
>
> I'm equating it with every other bit of politicized prejudice.

	I must admit I don't understand.

-- 
If you think nobody cares, try missing a couple of payments.

Post a reply to this message

Neeum Zawan wrote:
>     That's suggestive of a mutual exclusion. I was merely pointing out 
> that they didn't seem to feel that way.

I see. I feel the urge to say something more, but it's too late at night to 
be clear.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
   much longer being almost empty than almost full.

Post a reply to this message

Neeum Zawan wrote:
> being passed, I was curious as to what laws targeting African Americans 
> would be considered OK if their behavior was bad enough. (Part of the 
> unnecessary pre-emptive strike referred to above).

See "Black Panthers, History."  :-)

>     Reading it all again, it's clear you were just thinking aloud/asking 
> questions. Still - it's a public forum, and just because it's a reply to 
> you doesn't mean all of it has to be for your eyes. I can throw out 
> ideas as well.<G>

Certainly.

>> I'm equating it with every other bit of politicized prejudice.
>     I must admit I don't understand.

Almost every other form of prejudice actually brought into existence and 
legitimized by politics that I can think of wound up making those you were 
to hate "subhuman" as the reason for the hatred. Black slavery in America, 
gassing Jews in Germany, killing Gooks in 'Nam, women getting stoned for 
going outside without an escort or being too hysterical to vote, etc.

When it's not prejudice but merely differentiation (i.e., when you can 
actually move out of the group people are prejudiced against), people in the 
"out" group might get treated badly, but it doesn't seem the same. Such as 
keeping non-land-owners from voting - those without land were discriminated 
against but not particularly treated as inherently worth less, methinks.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
   much longer being almost empty than almost full.

Post a reply to this message

On 12/15/09 00:24, Darren New wrote:
> Neeum Zawan wrote:
>> being passed, I was curious as to what laws targeting African
>> Americans would be considered OK if their behavior was bad enough.
>> (Part of the unnecessary pre-emptive strike referred to above).
>
> See "Black Panthers, History." :-)

	What laws were passed against African Americans as a result of the 
Black Panthers (honest question)?


-- 
If you try to fail, and succeed, which have you done?

Post a reply to this message

Neeum Zawan wrote:
>     What laws were passed against African Americans as a result of the 
> Black Panthers (honest question)?

Mostly laws about carrying firearms in public. The black panthers took to 
carrying shotguns because so many of them had the crap beat out of them by 
police while other police threatened the rest of the group to keep them from 
intervening.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
   much longer being almost empty than almost full.

Post a reply to this message

On 12/15/09 19:11, Darren New wrote:
> Neeum Zawan wrote:
>> What laws were passed against African Americans as a result of the
>> Black Panthers (honest question)?
>
> Mostly laws about carrying firearms in public. The black panthers took
> to carrying shotguns because so many of them had the crap beat out of
> them by police while other police threatened the rest of the group to
> keep them from intervening.

	OK. I take it these were laws that forbade carrying them in public, or 
vice versa?

-- 
If you try to fail, and succeed, which have you done?

Post a reply to this message