Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3456 LastLast
Results 121 to 150 of 157

Thread: Any surprise this happens at bastions of liberalism?

  1. #121
    One could make the case that affirmative action assumes that one race is inferior.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  2. #122
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    One could make the case that affirmative action assumes that one race is inferior.
    True but here is another thought as well.

    What if you believe all races are equal however you want to push for policies that discriminate against one race so that you can live a higher quality of life. Common sense would say that if you support discriminatory policies on the basis of race you are in support of racist policies even if you believe race doesn't change someone's abilities.

  3. #123
    One could make the case that affirmative action assumes that one race is inferior.
    One which ignores the actual reasoning behind affirmative action, as described by people in favour of affirmative action.
    When the sky above us fell
    We descended into hell
    Into kingdom come

  4. #124
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    Under the idea that there can be roadside conversions we shouldn't have gone in to go kill Bin Laden either. Again God can do as he will and his ability to do miracles is limitless but unless you want our laws to be based on biblical principals than that shouldn't change how we handle criminals. And if you do want laws on biblical principals how could you possibly support religious freedom? If you are a 'good' person to other people but don't do honor to God it is meaningless. It always amuses me that people suggest that because I am a professed Christian I should support having mercy and leniency on criminals but still not support outlawing false religions, they want to pick and choose which parts of the religion make it into law which is just silly.
    I am not talking about the law there Lewk, I am asking you how you personally view people who sin. And how your fry them all approach does honor to your God.

  5. #125
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    One could make the case that affirmative action assumes that one race is inferior.
    One could, if one had a strong desire to make claims that are incorrect. If one wished to make correct claims one could instead claim that affirmative action assumes that there are some (usually minority) racial groups that are disadvantaged due to systematic problems that include but aren't limited to racial bias.
    "One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."

  6. #126
    Quote Originally Posted by Steely Glint View Post
    One which ignores the actual reasoning behind affirmative action, as described by people in favour of affirmative action.
    I'm not so sure. I think you do get some lefty types who do think blacks are inferior and need government assistance to keep up. This was probably more true when this policy was implemented than it is right now though.

    Quote Originally Posted by Aimless View Post
    One could, if one had a strong desire to make claims that are incorrect. If one wished to make correct claims one could instead claim that affirmative action assumes that there are some (usually minority) racial groups that are disadvantaged due to systematic problems that include but aren't limited to racial bias.
    I would be more sympathetic to that argument if the net effect of affirmative action wasn't to give a huge boost to the small black middle class, while doing little to nothing for a vast majority.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  7. #127
    I would be more sympathetic to that argument if the net effect of affirmative action wasn't to give a huge boost to the small black middle class, while doing little to nothing for a vast majority.
    It's reassuring to learn that you remain an unsympathetic fellow but your feelings have little to do with how correct your statement was I'd be a little more sympathetic if your defense wasn't basically, "I'm sure I would have been right about this in the past, maybe?"

    However, let's stay on topic and on target.
    "One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."

  8. #128
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    I'm not so sure. I think you do get some lefty types who do think blacks are inferior and need government assistance to keep up. This was probably more true when this policy was implemented than it is right now though.
    Well, I'm not going to say that no one has ever thought that, but that's about as far as I'll go in agreeing with what you just said.
    When the sky above us fell
    We descended into hell
    Into kingdom come

  9. #129
    Quote Originally Posted by Enoch the Red View Post
    I am not talking about the law there Lewk, I am asking you how you personally view people who sin. And how your fry them all approach does honor to your God.
    And I'm saying when developing secular laws we shouldn't be basing them off of our Christian values. If we did we would also be in favor of outlawing other religions.

  10. #130
    Quote Originally Posted by Aimless View Post

    However, let's stay on topic and on target.
    Hilarious.

  11. #131
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    And I'm saying when developing secular laws we shouldn't be basing them off of our Christian values. If we did we would also be in favor of outlawing other religions.
    Again, no where did I mention laws. There isn't a secular law that requires you to believe all criminals are worthless parasites deserving of death. That is a decision you made on your own. Now, can you answer the questions.

    If your son stole a candy bar from a store would he cease to be your son? Could the whole of his life, his past and future be boiled down to that one event? Is that what you want as a father, and is it what you want as a self-described Christian?

    how does your fry 'em mentality honor your God?

  12. #132
    Quote Originally Posted by Enoch the Red View Post
    Again, no where did I mention laws. There isn't a secular law that requires you to believe all criminals are worthless parasites deserving of death. That is a decision you made on your own. Now, can you answer the questions.

    If your son stole a candy bar from a store would he cease to be your son? Could the whole of his life, his past and future be boiled down to that one event? Is that what you want as a father, and is it what you want as a self-described Christian?

    how does your fry 'em mentality honor your God?
    This entire debate is about laws and how society should view the value of lives of criminals versus their victims. I'll always be on the side of the victims, the side that is minding their own business until someone violated the sanctity of their property. You can give me some claptrap about 'all life being equal' but I don't buy it. In a direct comparison between thieves and their victims I favor the innocent homeowners every single time.

    Now you ask if the thieves deserve death, well my answer (and the biblical one) is that all sinners deserve death. No conflict there. Of course we have been given the gift of grace but that doesn't change what we 'deserve.'

    And no he wouldn't stop being my son because he did something wrong. Obviously I've taught him stealing is wrong but if he did do it I'd punish him not disown him. And I've never been in favor of killing 6 year olds for stealing a candy bar.

  13. #133
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    This entire debate is about laws and how society should view the value of lives of criminals versus their victims. I'll always be on the side of the victims, the side that is minding their own business until someone violated the sanctity of their property.
    What a load of crap. You've repeatedly said that female coeds who use the campus 'tribunal' system aren't victims, but are liars and character defamers.

    You've also said "morality laws" are problematic, so make up your mind.

  14. #134
    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    What a load of crap. You've repeatedly said that female coeds who use the campus 'tribunal' system aren't victims, but are liars and character defamers.

    You've also said "morality laws" are problematic, so make up your mind.
    I'm saying colleges who use the campus tribunal systems are stupid. I'm saying those who make false accusations should be punished. And I instinctively err on the side of doubt if the person goes running to the college instead of the police FOR A CRIME.

  15. #135
    They can do both, but obviously it seems to be more effective to turn to the college/uni tribunal than to turn to the police, if results are what you're after best would of course be to just shoot the guy and claim he was trying to rape you.
    "One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."

  16. #136
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    This entire debate is about laws and how society should view the value of lives of criminals versus their victims. I'll always be on the side of the victims, the side that is minding their own business until someone violated the sanctity of their property. You can give me some claptrap about 'all life being equal' but I don't buy it. In a direct comparison between thieves and their victims I favor the innocent homeowners every single time.
    So can a homeowner rape a trespasser to death? After all, the trespasser has violated the sanctity of the homeowners property, and the homeowner was minding their own business. Why should they be able to kill the trespasser but not rape them? It would probably even have a pretty pronounced deterrent effect.

    Now you ask if the thieves deserve death, well my answer (and the biblical one) is that all sinners deserve death. No conflict there. Of course we have been given the gift of grace but that doesn't change what we 'deserve.'
    You are conflating eternal spiritual death with a physical punishment of death. If all sins deserve death then why was the physical punishment for sins not universally capital? Your religion teaches that God handed down laws to his people, and they very clearly outlined what God viewed as acceptable punishment. That punishment does not include death for theft, (except perhaps in the case of someone stealing a slave).

    And no he wouldn't stop being my son because he did something wrong. Obviously I've taught him stealing is wrong but if he did do it I'd punish him not disown him. And I've never been in favor of killing 6 year olds for stealing a candy bar.
    So when is it acceptable for someone who has violated the sanctity of property to be put to death? The homeowner in the case you cited earlier lied and said he didn't see who was in the garage, and fired blindly. Are you saying it would have been wrong had it been a six year old kid who had been trying to steal a candy bar?

  17. #137
    Quote Originally Posted by Enoch the Red View Post
    So can a homeowner rape a trespasser to death? After all, the trespasser has violated the sanctity of the homeowners property, and the homeowner was minding their own business. Why should they be able to kill the trespasser but not rape them? It would probably even have a pretty pronounced deterrent effect.
    Yes - because that is soooo likely to happen. Come on now.

    Quote Originally Posted by Enoch the Red View Post
    You are conflating eternal spiritual death with a physical punishment of death. If all sins deserve death then why was the physical punishment for sins not universally capital? Your religion teaches that God handed down laws to his people, and they very clearly outlined what God viewed as acceptable punishment. That punishment does not include death for theft, (except perhaps in the case of someone stealing a slave).
    You asked how I can reconcile my statement of thieves deserving death with my beliefs. I did. Now you want to go into specifics of what punishments society should mete out? That seems to be going into governing which I've already made clear is a bad mistake to combine religious and secular authority.

    Your candy bar example is absurd and if you have a case of said candy bar and six year old child please post a link.

  18. #138
    If it ever does happen, what will you do? Are you seriously saying you're an adult who can't think about hypothetical scenarios?
    "One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."

  19. #139
    Felony lobster-peddling:

    http://rt.com/usa/florida-door-to-door-house-roop-265/ (to be fair, no-one likes door-to-door salesmen and you gotta admit lobster's a little fishy)

    Felony dressing-up:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_...hihiro_Hattori

    Felony offroading:

    http://www.nbcnews.com/id/30650051/n...pass-shooting/ (oops, but kids shoulda known better tho')



    What the fuck is wrong with that country
    "One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."

  20. #140
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    Yes - because that is soooo likely to happen. Come on now.
    Perhaps it is my fault, but I have understood you to say that you are giving the property holder nearly unlimited leeway when it comes to those who would violate the sanctity of their property. You've also said that the greater the deterrent effect, the better. So why not allow them to rape or torture trespassers and thieves?

    You asked how I can reconcile my statement of thieves deserving death with my beliefs. I did. Now you want to go into specifics of what punishments society should mete out? That seems to be going into governing which I've already made clear is a bad mistake to combine religious and secular authority.
    So you don't recognize a difference between spiritual death and a physical punishment of death? Or do you really believe that God believed every sinner should be put to death?

    Your candy bar example is absurd and if you have a case of said candy bar and six year old child please post a link.
    Again, the homeowner that you have been defending claims he didn't see who was in his garage when he opened fire. If you aren't aware of who or what you are shooting at, how can you be sure it isn't a six year old? And what is the age that it becomes wrong to shoot a trespasser? If the six year old looks like a fifteen year old is it still okay to shoot them?

  21. #141
    What is wrong with liberals?

    http://news.yahoo.com/federal-regula...200907959.html

    You put a picture of HER as your poster child for this? Utter failure. There are real woman who ARE raped and it is a horrific crime. They would make a MUCH better poster child than this lying attention seeker.

  22. #142
    What in that piece do you find objectionable?
    Hope is the denial of reality

  23. #143
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    What in that piece do you find objectionable?
    The use of Emma Sulkowicz's picture.

  24. #144
    For all you know, it was some clueless editor who chose it.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  25. #145
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    What is wrong with liberals?

    http://news.yahoo.com/federal-regula...200907959.html

    You put a picture of HER as your poster child for this? Utter failure. There are real woman who ARE raped and it is a horrific crime. They would make a MUCH better poster child than this lying attention seeker.
    Just as you automatically and uncritically accept the man's word in he said/she said rape accusations, others are predisposed to believe the woman. They think she was raped and the legal requirement to prove it beyond reasonable doubt denied her justice. You've complained yourself (just yesterday, in fact) about how the law is predisposed toward letting the accused walk free with an acquittal. But since THIS accused is a middle to upper class white man who was attending college, well, obviously he IS supposed to get the benefit of the doubt and not the woman he possibly assaulted.

    You know, that guy whose life you feel she ruined? He had recourse against her, he could have sued her for libel and such. He didn't, he sued the school for "allowing" her to defame him. Because she didn't just drop the accusation when he was acquitted. but kept insisting it was the truth, that he raped her. Like someone who really WAS telling the truth would do. You have no basis for saying she made false accusations or lied other than that he wasn't found guilty. But then, you've never been able to tell the difference between "not guilty" and false accusations in the past, not when it comes to rape. I wonder why that particular blind spot considering you don't have it for any other people you insist were let off by an overly solicitous legal system. These campus panels would be right up your alley if they were for claims of theft.
    Last edited by LittleFuzzy; 07-04-2015 at 04:40 PM.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  26. #146
    http://america.aljazeera.com/watch/s...thepolice.html

    In the hearing, Sulkowicz said she had to explain to the three administrators on the panel how anal rape worked.

    ...

    Her best friend was meant to be at the hearing; Sulkowicz had chosen her as her one “supporter.” But her friend was kicked out of that role for talking about the case, according to Sulkowicz, in violation of the university’s confidentiality policy. As punishment, her friend was also put on probation and made to write two reflection papers: one from the perspective of Sulkowicz and another from the accused.

    ...



    Many of those who learned about her story asked her the same question — to her face and on Facebook: Why didn’t you just go to the police?

    According to a 2000 study by the Department of Justice, fewer than 5 percent of college women who suffered completed or attempted rapes reported it to law enforcement. Almost a quarter of rape victims who did not report said they were afraid of being treated with hostility. Twenty-seven percent said they thought the police wouldn’t think it was serious enough.

    ...

    From the questions officers asked her, Sulkowicz quickly got the impression that they thought she was making it all up. “You didn’t call the police? Most women would have called the police,” one said, according to Sulkowicz. “You don’t even remember the color of his eyes?”

    Sulkowicz said that same officer also insisted that she hadn’t been raped, telling her, "You invited him into your room. That’s not the legal definition of rape."

    ...

    “For every single rape I’ve had, I’ve had 20 that are total bull----,” he added. “It’s also my type of job to get to the truth. If that means being harsh about it, that’s what I do.”

    ...

    As sexual misconduct on college campuses has become a national issue, with the White House weighing in last month, many commentators have questioned why colleges are in the business of handling sexual assault at all.

    “There’s a multi-hundred year history of a complete failure of the criminal justice system to handle sexual assault,” explained David Lisak, a forensic consultant who has advised more than 100 colleges on how to handle sexual misconduct.

    “Victims are frightened by it. There’s no confidence in it. [Not all that long ago] there was no point in reporting if you couldn’t show by the bruises, cuts and broken bones on your body that you had fought to your end and finally been overcome.”
    Either cops are dangerously retarded or 95% of women who claim they were raped are lying about it


    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/03/ny...anted=all&_r=0

    Like all major crimes in New York, the number of episodes classified as rape has declined significantly, down 35.7 percent from 2005 to 2009. Yet since 2005, the number of sex crimes classified as misdemeanors has risen by 6 percent.

    At the same time, there has been a sharp increase in the rate at which complaints of forcible rape have been dismissed by the police as false or lacking enough evidence to take to court.

    “This was just an accumulation of stories: five boroughs, over and over again,” said Harriet Lessel, executive director of the New York City Alliance Against Sexual Assault, an advocacy group for rape crisis programs. “It was just sort of like, ‘Wow, something different is going on here.’ In terms of not taking reports, I’d have to say that this seems like the highest number that I’ve ever heard.”

    One common theme among women who have come forward, according to counselors and victims interviewed by The New York Times, is that too many inquiries are being handled by inexperienced patrol officers, not detectives from the Special Victims Division, who have had specialized training in dealing with sex crime cases.
    Tsk, tsk, tsk
    "One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."

  27. #147
    Is Sulkowitz the only source for that discussion with the cop?
    Hope is the denial of reality

  28. #148
    No, her liar if a friend
    "One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."

  29. #149
    Quote Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy View Post
    Just as you automatically and uncritically accept the man's word in he said/she said rape accusations, others are predisposed to believe the woman. They think she was raped and the legal requirement to prove it beyond reasonable doubt denied her justice. You've complained yourself (just yesterday, in fact) about how the law is predisposed toward letting the accused walk free with an acquittal. But since THIS accused is a middle to upper class white man who was attending college, well, obviously he IS supposed to get the benefit of the doubt and not the woman he possibly assaulted.

    You know, that guy whose life you feel she ruined? He had recourse against her, he could have sued her for libel and such. He didn't, he sued the school for "allowing" her to defame him. Because she didn't just drop the accusation when he was acquitted. but kept insisting it was the truth, that he raped her. Like someone who really WAS telling the truth would do. You have no basis for saying she made false accusations or lied other than that he wasn't found guilty. But then, you've never been able to tell the difference between "not guilty" and false accusations in the past, not when it comes to rape. I wonder why that particular blind spot considering you don't have it for any other people you insist were let off by an overly solicitous legal system. These campus panels would be right up your alley if they were for claims of theft.
    Look into the damned case Fuzzy.

    http://dailycaller.com/2015/04/24/th...ill-shock-you/

    I'd encourage you to read the filed complaint.

    As you read through it... remember this date. The so called sexual assault occurred on 08/27/2012.

  30. #150
    Hey did toy know some people are married to their rapists?
    "One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •