Aunt on Facebook

waybread

Well-known member
Why would I have a problem with people from other ethnicities?

We don't disagree on the issues or on the desired result.

We only disagree on the method on how to achieve such results. Thats all - and has been the same on every thread.

I think government's only purpose is to protect the rights of its citizens.

To me integration and acceptance have to occur naturally.

Enforcing integration only causes the problems you have now.

Government shouldn't force people to either segregate or integrate.

Human beings are born free, and should be treated as such. As long as we respect each other's right, we don't really need government interference. Goverment to me should only step in, when someone's rights are violated.

Then a thread on the United States politics should be meaningless to you. In the US, the purpose and duties of the three branches of federal government are spelled out in the Constitution. They are miles apart from your professed beliefs. I think this thread is about your wanting the United States to be something it is not.

Have you read the US Constitution, Dirius? Some of the amendments are extremely important, like the 14th Amendment of 1868, shortly after the end of the Civil War. It enshrines the right to equal protection under the law.

The Preamble to the Declaration of Independence states:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of happiness.

So what happens when someone's rights to "liberty and the pursuit of happiness" get trampled on by bigoted people, due to conditions of birth, such as ethnicity/race, gender, religion, or political beliefs?

This is really what the Black Lives Matter is about. If all are entitled to equal protection under the law, and if all are entitled to equality, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, then it is essential that the nation live up to its own charters.

The often-noted irony is that the Declaration of Independence was written when a number of the founders were slave holders. But over time, various disadvantaged groups have held the country's feet to the fire. If "all men are created equal" then there is no justification for discriminatory legislation or practices based upon ethnicity. The concept of "men" over time has expanded to include women, people with disabilities, and people of different sexual and gender orientations.

The idea of "immigration and acceptance occuring naturally" (whatever "natural" means to you,) is the old "evolution vs. revolution" argument. No group of oppressed people have obtained their rights by sitting meekly by and waiting for their "superiors" to deign to hand them more rights. People living under discrimination have always had to fight (whether metaphorically or literally) to obtain justice and equal protection under the law.

"Enforcing integration"? Seriously. You know about the practice of redlining and restrictive home-owners covenants in American cities? Black Americans lived with enforced segregation that prevented them from having the same rights to choose their homes that white Americans enjoyed. Hence the Fair Housing Act of 1968.

You know about Jim Crow laws in the South, abolished only by the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and innumerable related court cases?

You're not writing about the United States, Dirius. I actually don't think you're writing about any country on the map.
 
Last edited:

Dirius

Well-known member
Then a thread on the United States politics should be meaningless to you. In the US, the purpose and duties of the three branches of federal government are spelled out in the Constitution. They are miles apart from your professed beliefs. I think this thread is about your wanting the United States to be something it is not.

Have you read the US Constitution, Dirius? Some of the amendments are extremely important, like the 14th Amendment of 1868, shortly after the end of the Civil War. It enshrines the right to equal protection under the law.

The Preamble to the Declaration of Independence states:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of happiness.

So what happens when someone's rights to "liberty and the pursuit of happiness" get trampled on by bigoted people, due to conditions of birth, such as ethnicity/race, gender, religion, or political beliefs?
Did I say these are the functions of the US government? No I did't.


Those are just my personal beliefs of how an ideal form of government should work.

You are resorting to a strawman argument in the beginning of your post, because your entire argument is invalid from the start.

This is really what the Black Lives Matter is about. If all are entitled to equal protection under the law, and if all are entitled to equality, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, then it is essential that the nation live up to its own charters.

Not true because BLM movement has a lot of other propositions and objectives in their agenda, completely unrelated to what you have just mentioned.

The often-noted irony is that the Declaration of Independence was written when a number of the founders were slave holders. But over time, various disadvantaged groups have held the country's feet to the fire. If "all men are created equal" then there is no justification for discriminatory legislation or practices based upon ethnicity. The concept of "men" over time has expanded to include women, people with disabilities, and people of different sexual and gender orientations.

The idea of "immigration and acceptance occuring naturally" (whatever "natural" means to you,) is the old "evolution vs. revolution" argument. No group of oppressed people have obtained their rights by sitting meekly by and waiting for their "superiors" to deign to hand them more rights. People living under discrimination have always had to fight (whether metaphorically or literally) to obtain justice and equal protection under the law.

"Enforcing integration"? Seriously. You know about the practice of redlining and restrictive home-owners covenants in American cities? Black Americans lived with enforced segregation that prevented them from having the same rights to choose their homes that white Americans enjoyed. Hence the Fair Housing Act of 1968.

You know about Jim Crow laws in the South, abolished only by the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and innumerable related court cases?

You're not writing about the United States, Dirius. I actually don't think you're writing about any country on the map.

So you then agree it was the government who enforced segregation upon black people in the first place.

And what did abolitionists fought against? the legal status of slavery enforced by the state governments - this is why the fight for the end of slavery began in congress, not in the battlefield.

And what was the civil rights movement? Protests against laws limitating their liberty.

These movement simply overturned already existing government laws, and created new laws and constitutional amendment which would prevent such segregation from being enforced ever again them.

The 14th amendment does not force integration. It simply recognizes every slave as a citizen with the same rights as white people.
 

aquarius7000

Well-known member
Some rules are fine and even necessary. The key thing is that it must be universally agreed upon. For example, we all agree that murder is wrong, rape is wrong, assault is wrong...etc, so it's OK to have rules in place against these things.
And racism that often leads to murder is not wrong?

That makes a lot of sense :rolleyes:
 

wan

Well-known member
And racism that often leads to murder is not wrong?

That makes a lot of sense :rolleyes:

Racism can lead to murder but not always.

According to your "logic", when people are angry, they can murder someone. Does that mean we are going to outlaw anger now?

Furthermore, do you admit that you and people like you try to use the government's coercive power to force people to be tolerant?
 
Last edited:

david starling

Well-known member
Racism can lead to murder but not always.

According to your "logic", when people are angry, they can murder someone. Does that mean we are going to outlaw anger now?

Furthermore, do you admit that you and people like you try to use the government's coercive power to force people to be tolerant?

Not "tolerant" in the mental and emotional sense. More like "civil", "courteous", and "respectful", despite intolerant thoughts and feelings.

Freedom of Speech makes it possible to express intolerance in words, but not in actions.

Keep in mind that words can be used to wound the feelings of others, and words deliberately spoken to provoke fear, anger and violence, or cause injuries and deaths, are more in the category of actions.
 
Last edited:

wan

Well-known member
Not "tolerant" in the mental and emotional sense. More like "civil", "courteous", and "respectful", despite intolerant thoughts and feelings.

If you personally want to be civil, courteous, respectful etc, that is your right. But please do not pass laws to force others to do the same.

Keep in mind that words can be used to wound the feelings of others, and words deliberately spoken to provoke fear, anger and violence, or cause injuries and deaths, are more in the category of actions.

Sorry but no. Either words are words, or they are "actions" (which, by the way, only you believe). They are not "more in the category of actions". It sounds like you are spin-doctoring.

You seem to really want to curtail people's freedom of speech and make them unable to say racist things. I am not sure if I agree with this.
 
Last edited:

david starling

Well-known member
If you personally want to be civil, courteous, respectful etc, that is your right. But please do not pass laws to force others to do the same.



Sorry but no. Either words are words, or they are "actions" (which, by the way, only you believe). They are not "more in the category of actions". It sounds like you are spin-doctoring.

You seem to really want to curtail people's freedom of speech and make them unable to say racist things. I am not sure if I agree with this.

Go ahead then: Shout "fire" in a crowded theater with only one exit, and when people are trampled to death, claim it was a fair exercise of Freedom of Speech.

So, you don't consider "speaking" an action? As opposed to just "thinking" ? Would just thinking the word "fire" have had the same result?
 
Last edited:

david starling

Well-known member
The "As for me, give me Liberty or give me death!" speech by Patrick Henry is said to have sparked the Revolutionary War.

What if he had just sat there and thought it?
 

wan

Well-known member
Go ahead then: Shout "fire" in a crowded theater with only one exit, and when people are trampled to death, claim it was a fair exercise of Freedom of Speech.

I am not sure about the legal ramification of this action. It's up to the individual jurisdictions to determine whether this is a fair expression of freedom of speech.

So, you don't consider "speaking" an action? As opposed to just "thinking" ? Would just thinking the word "fire" have had the same result?

Speaking is indeed an action, however words themselves are not actions. I am sorry that I need to be telling you this.

Anyways, a question for you: should we pass laws to prohibit people from saying hurtful, racist things? Yes or no.
 

wan

Well-known member
The "As for me, give me Liberty or give me death!" speech by Patrick Henry is said to have sparked the Revolutionary War.

What if he had just sat there and thought it?

Indeed words can have impacts, however, this still does not make them actions, which is what you are claiming. Furthermore, just because words can negative impacts, we should still not pass laws to prohibit them.
 

david starling

Well-known member
Indeed words can have impacts, however, this still does not make them actions, which is what you are claiming. Furthermore, just because words can negative impacts, we should still not pass laws to prohibit them.

Words thought versus words spoken are quite different.
 
Top