Ham Steak + Muslims = Instant Hate Crime

RollingSkull

RollingSkull

Banned
Man, these days, you don't even have to beat some dude to death or firebomb something to succeed at a hate crime.

http://www.sunjournal.com/story/208385-3/LewistonAuburn/Hate_incident_in_city/

LEWISTON - One student has been suspended and more disciplinary action could follow a possible hate crime at Lewiston Middle School, Superintendent Leon Levesque said Wednesday.

On April 11, a white student placed a ham steak in a bag on a lunch table where Somali students were eating. Muslims consider pork unclean and offensive.

The act reminded students of a man who threw a pig's head into a Lewiston mosque last summer.

The school incident is being treated seriously as "a hate incident," Levesque said. Lewiston police are investigating, and the Center for the Prevention of Hate Violence is working with the school to create a response plan.
Click to expand...
...

"Incidents like this that involve degrading language or conduct are often said by the perpetrator as a joke. I know that conduct is never static," he said. "It's part of a process of escalation."
Click to expand...
First it is a viciously placed ham steak... then, firebombing mosques. They follow like... well... bacon and eggs?

WAIT NO I MEAN

AW fuck I COMMITTED A HATE CRIME!
 
Well, if you read the article, the porkbag kid did sound like a bully, you know, one of those a-holes back in the day that always meant trouble. No doubt he deserved some sort of punishment.

Charging the porkbag kid with a crime for this is pretty ridiculous however - he's probably not a racist but rather a grade-a jackass. Because of this kind case, people believe it's a crime to insult someone. It really has been a disturbing trend.

I don't know about anyone else, but if this had been all that I had had to go through in HS I would have been thankful.

And that Somali kid really doesn't sound racist at all. Wow - one white person threw some pork in a bag at him, and a few white people laughed - that means all white people must be jerks!
 
Dude, I do worse stuff than that daily, to my friends. Yeah, he did so in a jerkweed way, but he threw a sack of meat on a table!
 
What I think is interesting is that it's being treated as a "serious hate crime" and the kid's in middle school. I don't care if it was unintentional or if he was being a douche -- this is kind of a ridiculous response.
 
it was a jackass thing to do and the kid should be punished and it was obviously a deliberate attempt to humiliate him through his religion. Hate crime is taking it kinda far, though the kid should prob go to some sort of sensitivity training.
 
Where I come from, that's called getting someone's goat. If putting someone in proximity to ham steak is going to elicit a disproportionate reaction from you, then the entire school will continue doing it.
 
Not unrelated:

http://www.startribune.com/191/story/1130134.html

What if a campus fails to make these changes, and others like them? It is guilty, says the report, of "Islamophobia" -- an "emerging form of racism," according to the Ontario Human Rights Commission. Islamophobia includes more than clearly inappropriate behavior such as violence against Muslims or unreasonable suspicion of them. It can be as "subtle" as a remark that includes a "stereotype" or betrays the speaker's "lack of understanding" of Islam (such as the notion that Sharia law treats women as second class citizens). Just "one comment" of this kind can create a "poisoned" learning environment for Muslim students, the report says.
Click to expand...
A great rhetorical trick. Define down "-phobia" to mean "Not a de facto Muslim." Like the entire culture knows how to push our buttons.

It gets better!

"Islamophobic" comments will soon land Canadians in serious trouble, if the federation has its way. The report outlines a comprehensive system "to encourage and facilitate a culture of reporting Islamophobia on campus. Anti-discrimination officers should be notified whenever such a comment is made, it says.

But the report makes clear that systems like this will not eradicate Islamophobia from Canadian campuses. To remove stereotypes, faculty, staff, students and administrators must all learn "the tenets of Islam," it said. "Education modules" for professors should incorporate a focus on "Islam and Islamophobia," while student activities could range from more courses on themes of the Qur'an and the Islamic world today to "socials, programs and other initiatives" to teach about Islam. Everyone on campus should learn to recognize his or her "collective responsibility to identify and stop Islamophobia."

Throughout this process, however, Islam must not be taught from a "Western perspective." This qualifies as Islamophobia, because it "misrepresents Islam." At the same time, the report says, some Muslim students have called for integrating "Islamic perspectives" in disciplines such as marketing, nursing and finance," since Islam's view of these differs from those of the West.
Click to expand...

What this means is that failure to comply with the Koran merits "reeducation." To avoid this, the college will need to offer, and students will need to take, classes glorifying Islam, which cannot be taught academically. To do so would be racist, Islamophobic, what have you. No, you must teach pure Islam, unfiltered through the dirty minds of the infidels.

I love these guys. They have basically figured out how to play western societies in ways I have been dreaming of for years!
 
"On April 11, a white student placed a ham steak in a bag on a lunch table where Somali students were eating. Muslims consider pork unclean and offensive."

If the student was not white, do you think they would have mentioned the race?
 
[quote name='YoshiFan1']"On April 11, a white student placed a ham steak in a bag on a lunch table where Somali students were eating. Muslims consider pork unclean and offensive."

If the student was not white, do you think they would have mentioned the race?[/quote]

No.
 
[quote name='RollingSkull']No.[/quote]

There is no fate the United States justice system could provide that would bring about a fitting end to these fuckers


Why isn't this case reported as a 'hate crime' like it would have been if it was the other way around?
 
What he did was a "hate incident" in the fact that he obviously chose to do something that would insult their religion in particular. How that can be misunderstood is beyond me. He shouldn't be charged with a crime, but it's someting that should be taken seriously, not laughed off.
 
[quote name='RollingSkull']Not unrelated:

http://www.startribune.com/191/story/1130134.html


A great rhetorical trick. Define down "-phobia" to mean "Not a de facto Muslim." Like the entire culture knows how to push our buttons.

It gets better!



What this means is that failure to comply with the Koran merits "reeducation." To avoid this, the college will need to offer, and students will need to take, classes glorifying Islam, which cannot be taught academically. To do so would be racist, Islamophobic, what have you. No, you must teach pure Islam, unfiltered through the dirty minds of the infidels.

I love these guys. They have basically figured out how to play western societies in ways I have been dreaming of for years![/quote]

I fear the day that schools can't serve hotdogs because being near pork will offend the muslims.

The mainstream religions already got their god in our pledges and on our money last century - who knows how far this perversion of our government in the "Land of the 'Free'"will spread.

RS - that's one sad story.
 
[quote name='SpazX']What he did was a "hate incident" in the fact that he obviously chose to do something that would insult their religion in particular. How that can be misunderstood is beyond me. He shouldn't be charged with a crime, but it's someting that should be taken seriously, not laughed off.[/QUOTE]

That's about right. If you intentionally try to be an offensive dickwad, you get suspended. That's not a tough concept to grasp. But getting the cops involved? Sheesh. Schools are hyper-sensitive, but I can't say I blame them, considering how often even more hyper-sensitive parents sue them.
 
[quote name='RollingSkull']What this means is that failure to comply with the Koran merits "reeducation." To avoid this, the college will need to offer, and students will need to take, classes glorifying Islam, which cannot be taught academically. To do so would be racist, Islamophobic, what have you. No, you must teach pure Islam, unfiltered through the dirty minds of the infidels.

I love these guys. They have basically figured out how to play western societies in ways I have been dreaming of for years![/QUOTE]

There's nothing in there about "complying" or "glorifying." It's not one iota different from how students are taught to look at different eras or cultures in any other discipline: you judge them according to their own standards, not yours. You know: the idea that you're not automatically right just because you're "you." It's that whole "open mind" thing. Helps with the learning. Kind of a laudable goal for schools, probably.
 
[quote name='camoor']I fear the day that schools can't serve hotdogs because being near pork will offend the muslims..[/QUOTE]
Hot dogs will always be allowed since there's no real meat in them anyway.:lol:
 
[quote name='Metal Boss']There is no fate the United States justice system could provide that would bring about a fitting end to these fuckers


Why isn't this case reported as a 'hate crime' like it would have been if it was the other way around?[/QUOTE]

Because whites can only commit a hate crime, and not be the victim of one (at least that unfortunately appears to be the case). I can't believe I never heard of this incident either.
 
[quote name='RollingSkull']No.[/QUOTE]


do u even read the articles, nowhere in the actual news articles used as the sources were there mention of "The animals pictured below raped Christopher Newsom, cut off his penis, then set him on fire and fatally shot him several times while they forced his girlfriend, Channon Christian, to watch. An even more cruel fate awaited her!

Channon Christian, was beaten and gang-raped in many ways for four days by all of them, while they took turns urinating on her. Then they cut off her breast and put chemicals in her mouth … and then murdered her."


so either someone has some serious inside connections and that info didnt get released to the media or its total BS, i am in no way degrading the murder of these two individuals, but lets get the facts right at least


ohh and here are the sources http://www.nowpublic.com/knox_blacks_celebrate_carjacking_rapists_in_party

http://www.wate.com/Global/story.asp?S=5930690
 
[quote name='trq']There's nothing in there about "complying" or "glorifying." It's not one iota different from how students are taught to look at different eras or cultures in any other discipline: you judge them according to their own standards, not yours. You know: the idea that you're not automatically right just because you're "you." It's that whole "open mind" thing. Helps with the learning. Kind of a laudable goal for schools, probably.[/quote]

Reread the entire article. The modules focus on "Islam and Islamophobia" and they are defining Islamophobia down to include offering school grants with interest, as the Koran forbids usury. I think you're idealizing their motives a smidge more than is justified by the facts. Consider, also, that Aussie schools have began to erase Holocaust history from their cirriculae so as not to conflict with the teachings their Islamic students have received from their own church teachings.

Furthermore, I think that sort of knee-jerk nonjudgementalism (How dare you presume to judge group X! You're not even ONE of them. You just think you're right because you don't understand their point of view!) has been a blight on the public education system for as long as I remember sitting through brain dead history class after brain dead history class, each ideologically hamstrung by falsehoods like SMALLPOX BLANKETS and a paradigm that can only allow self-flagellation, repeatedly advancing the notion that America has always been the one true force for evil in all of the world's history.
 
[quote name='trq']That's about right. If you intentionally try to be an offensive dickwad, you get suspended. That's not a tough concept to grasp. But getting the cops involved? Sheesh. Schools are hyper-sensitive, but I can't say I blame them, considering how often even more hyper-sensitive parents sue them.[/quote]
I am now beginning to see the logistical advantages of having a religion that considers receiving bad grades or being charged MSRP for video games to be a deeply offensive thing.

Seriously though. He placed a bag of meat on the table near them! It isn't like he called the lot of them sandniggers. (Just an excuse to use the nigger censor image. I love that.) Are you seriously advocating that we define out as suspendable actions based on the whims of the most offended subgroup? If so, I'm going out of my way to make a religion that forbids cutting in line, walking slowly, and standing in large groups to block a hallway.

To take a different rhetorical track, I think school idiocy like this certainly isn't going to help those Muslims fit in. The message has been sent. They're special. Protected. You can't prank them like you can just about anyone else, or the administration will be on you like white on rice. Think that isn't going to inspire even more ill will from their classmates?
 
Is Rollingskull actually arguing that this was an accidental ham?

Or is he just that much of a flaming ninny?
Click to expand...

Msut, please, what we had was great. The stuff of legends. You were the Lucy to my Ricky. The Dianne to my Sam. The Edith to my Archie. The Rebecca to my... well... also Sam. The Lovey to my Thurston.

But, it is over now, sweetie. You're going to have to move on. I know I have,
 
To be fair, while it's fascinating that the news did not jump all over the Christian/Newsom murders, it's not evidence of a anti-white double standard. After all, who was the centerpiece of the news before Imus, Gonzalez, and VT?

Anna Nicole.

Who get national stories when they're abducted? Pretty white females.

What groups are more likely to be abducted but aren't reported on? Black females (and, I believe, males).

The media is a mess, and I don't excuse their failure to report on that case. It certainly has all the elements of sensationalism and outrage that national news channels crave.

As for the point you're trying to make with that incident, it falls on deaf ears, given the regional small-town paper you cite in the OP.

The fact of the matter is that a ham-steak is considerable as a "hate incident." There's no two ways about it, IMO.

You can take issue with its designation, you can take issue with the police involvement, or you can take issue with both. Personally, I see no reason to think of it as anything but a hate incident (you must admit, a ham steak is a pretty absurd thing to taunt someone with unless you fully grasp what is considered unclean by Muslim doctrine, and select those people as a target). I would disagree with official involvement and the need to "make an extreme example" of this kid. It seems to have backfired, as people (like you) are feeling sorry for this fucker because you feel he's being overpunished. I don't disagree that the punishment is unnecessary, but still think the kid is a fucker.

Now, I think you need to reconsider how "hate crime" is defined by US law before making any further claims. I don't know how Canada does it, but I do know how the US (or at least most states) do it, and your insistence (in the OP) of massive violence is unnecessary and unrelated to "hate crime" designation.
 
[quote name='Msut77']http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a5_066.html[/quote]
Msut, dear, that's why I loved you. The amusing little way in which you prove my point for me.

Of course I knew about that letter. I almost was hoping someone would dig it up.

If the burden of proof for unqualified statements in college level US History books about multiple instances of smallpox blankets is a single mention of the possibility of it in a single letter, then I rest my case regarding history classes being crap.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']To be fair, while it's fascinating that the news did not jump all over the Christian/Newsom murders, it's not evidence of a anti-white double standard. After all, who was the centerpiece of the news before Imus, Gonzalez, and VT?

Anna Nicole.

Who get national stories when they're abducted? Pretty white females.

What groups are more likely to be abducted but aren't reported on? Black females (and, I believe, males).

The media is a mess, and I don't excuse their failure to report on that case. It certainly has all the elements of sensationalism and outrage that national news channels crave.[/quote]

I disagree with you on your basic principles there. For starters, I'm not implying an anti-white double standard in the news. I'd say it ranges more along the pro-non-white-ethnic-group standard, which comes from a (p, m)aternalistic mindset that to give out that sort of information inflames racial ill will against non-whites. Approach it from that paradigm, and I think it holds for most media practices. (Well, when combined with the ratings grab of an attractive little blond girl in peril when you factor in the sleaze of the likes of Geraldo and Greta.*)

*This should go without saying, but Fox News dipwad reporters are the only ones whose names I can recall. Please don't take it as affirmation about the EVILS of FAUX NEWS.

As for the point you're trying to make with that incident, it falls on deaf ears, given the regional small-town paper you cite in the OP.

The fact of the matter is that a ham-steak is considerable as a "hate incident." There's no two ways about it, IMO.

You can take issue with its designation, you can take issue with the police involvement, or you can take issue with both. Personally, I see no reason to think of it as anything but a hate incident (you must admit, a ham steak is a pretty absurd thing to taunt someone with unless you fully grasp what is considered unclean by Muslim doctrine, and select those people as a target). I would disagree with official involvement and the need to "make an extreme example" of this kid. It seems to have backfired, as people (like you) are feeling sorry for this fucker because you feel he's being overpunished. I don't disagree that the punishment is unnecessary, but still think the kid is a fucker.

Now, I think you need to reconsider how "hate crime" is defined by US law before making any further claims. I don't know how Canada does it, but I do know how the US (or at least most states) do it, and your insistence (in the OP) of massive violence is unnecessary and unrelated to "hate crime" designation.
Click to expand...

I think it goes without saying, but hate crime designations are bunk anyway. I need not explain why unless someone has the stones to contest me on that one. Furthermore, I think it goes without saying that my statement (More mocking at how much easier 'bigotry' has become) in the original post was a jest.

I, for one, have seen readings of the Koran that claim that eating pork is bad, not simply being around it. And I could, were I to retrace my steps over the ENTIRE INTERNETS, unearth a good deal of anecdotes of Muslims being less than strict about it.

That said, I'm not entirely sure where you're approaching this from, if you're slavishly devoted to the legal definition of a 'hate incident'... or, well, I don't know.

I don't know what you mean by my point "falling on deaf ears." And I certainly don't agree that the administrations efforts have backfired. They've suspended the kid. The message has been sent to those students.
 
Once you start criminalizing the hate emotion, you're taking a step into Orwellian thought-police land.

Crime is crime.

An accused person's sentence shouldn't depend on the color of their skin and the color of the victims skin. That's called racism.
 
[quote name='camoor']Once you start criminalizing the hate emotion, you're taking a step into Orwellian thought-police land.

Crime is crime.

An accused person's sentence shouldn't depend on the color of their skin and the color of the victims skin. That's called racism.[/quote]
The point isn't to actually define and sentence based on the emotion of "hate." That's simply the word they use to name it. You're right that it shouldn't depend on the color of skin, but that's not what it's supposed to do (how it works in individual cases is another story). Sentencing does depend on intent, as it should, and this is simply another level of intent.

When someone commits a hate crime they're supposed to get a harsher sentence because they are not only attacking an individual they are attacking a group through that individual.

An obvious example: A Klansman burning down a black family's house is more than a crime against that one family. They pick out that victim because of their race and their intent is to spread fear among them and therefore attack that entire group.
 
[quote name='RollingSkull']Msut, dear, that's why I loved you. The amusing little way in which you prove my point for me.

Of course I knew about that letter. I almost was hoping someone would dig it up.

If the burden of proof for unqualified statements in college level US History books about multiple instances of smallpox blankets is a single mention of the possibility of it in a single letter, then I rest my case regarding history classes being crap.[/QUOTE]

You sound like a Holocaust denier.

There was more than one letter by him showing he was completely bent on exterminating Native Americans.
 
Are smallpox blankets in and of themselves really that relevant RollingSkull? Is the forced relocation and extermination of native americans not readily apparent? Are you trying to say that the main culprits behind it were not white Americans?

Just what exactly is the point?

EDIT: If anything grade school history is incredibly rosy and college history only seems so harsh in contrast to the avoidance of actually teaching anything in grade school.

All that aside from the bias that any particular textbook may have since they are indeed written by people.
 
[quote name='SpazX']Are smallpox blankets in and of themselves really that relevant RollingSkull? Is the forced relocation and extermination of native americans not readily apparent? Are you trying to say that the main culprits behind it were not white Americans?

Just what exactly is the point?[/quote]

This is a fairly common fallacy. Allow me to paraphrase it with a skit, as this is the best way I can describe it.

Msut: Hitler killed 7 billion Jews.
RS: Er... I don't think there are that many Jews on planet Earth. He couldn't possibly have killed that many.
Msut: Defending Hitler again, are we?
SpazX: Well, he still committed genocide. Why are you denying that?

The smallpox blankets was simply a small, but easy example of falsehoods and similar idiocy taught in textbooks, similar also to the myth of Native Americans being "at one with nature" or what have you (Sorry, Native American myths are easy targets, as I've long since forgotten most of my grievances).

The point isn't to actually define and sentence based on the emotion of "hate." That's simply the word they use to name it. You're right that it shouldn't depend on the color of skin, but that's not what it's supposed to do (how it works in individual cases is another story). Sentencing does depend on intent, as it should, and this is simply another level of intent.
Click to expand...

Intent has only, in the past, mattered in determining predetermination. Anything beyond that stretches into motive (Which is closer to what you describe. Why they did it. It doesn't matter if you kill your spouse for the insurance money or because she wasn't putting out.) and isn't a part of the prosecution's responsibility. Hate crimes put motive in the hands of the prosecution, and challenge the defendant to prove that the 'hate' motive wasn't in their hearts.

I don't think what the law SHOULD do in this case is as relevant as what it actually does: create protected "victim groups" (currently devoid of white, heterosexual males) who have legal advantages that directly contradict notions of equality before the law, should crimes against these groups be motivated by their membership in said groups (Abstract terminology used because these victim groups could, theoretically, expand indefinitely. Could it be a hate crime to beat up wiggers? Hobos?).
 
[quote name='RollingSkull']

The smallpox blankets was simply a small, but easy example of falsehoods and similar idiocy taught in textbooks, similar also to the myth of Native Americans being "at one with nature" or what have you (Sorry, Native American myths are easy targets, as I've long since forgotten most of my grievances).[/QUOTE]


well its hard to generalize Native Americans since there were so many tribes of them, but there are many examples of them being one with Nature. In the current National Geographic they discuss the Jamestown colony, and one of the reasons they succeeded and the larger group of NA failed was that the Europeans fucKed up the land. They change the way the whole area functioned, introduced livestock destroying grassland and agriculture, introducing earthworms and european honey bees disrupting forests and sustainable agriculture. Now the NA might have no been completely at one with nature but they were much more able to move with nature instead of going completely against it like Europeans.
 
Geez, you make it sound like every attempt to bring foreign crops and animals is an affront to Gaia and doomed to failure.

The Native Americans weren't especially different from any other nomadic tribal sorts of cultures. They'd use up the resources they could in an area, and move on.
 
[quote name='RollingSkull']RS: People are telling lies about Hitler.
Msut: Hitler caused the death of around 6 million Jews.
RS: Hitler killed no Jews and Poland attacked Germany first.
Msut: Defending Hitler again, are we?
SpazX: Well, he committed genocide. Why are you denying that?[/QUOTE]

Meanwhile this is closer to what actually happened.
 
[quote name='RollingSkull']Geez, you make it sound like every attempt to bring foreign crops and animals is an affront to Gaia and doomed to failure.

The Native Americans weren't especially different from any other nomadic tribal sorts of cultures. They'd use up the resources they could in an area, and move on.[/QUOTE]



I guess u have no idea what happens when you bring flora and fauna from a different ecosystem to a new environment, it can decimate it and take over, very similar to what the Europeans did
 
[quote name='RollingSkull']
Intent has only, in the past, mattered in determining predetermination. Anything beyond that stretches into motive (Which is closer to what you describe. Why they did it. It doesn't matter if you kill your spouse for the insurance money or because she wasn't putting out.) and isn't a part of the prosecution's responsibility. Hate crimes put motive in the hands of the prosecution, and challenge the defendant to prove that the 'hate' motive wasn't in their hearts.

I don't think what the law SHOULD do in this case is as relevant as what it actually does: create protected "victim groups" (currently devoid of white, heterosexual males) who have legal advantages that directly contradict notions of equality before the law, should crimes against these groups be motivated by their membership in said groups (Abstract terminology used because these victim groups could, theoretically, expand indefinitely. Could it be a hate crime to beat up wiggers? Hobos?).[/quote]
Yeah you're right, that would be motive.

I agree that every crime that a white guy commits against a minority group should not be a hate crime and I don't believe that all of them are considered hate crimes.

But can you tell me with a straight face that the boy didn't target the somali students because of their religion with the intention of insulting their religion? Can you tell me that when the majority group does something like that to a minority group it doesn't create tension between the groups that can then escalate to more violence? Is that then not a more serious crime?

[quote name='RollingSkull']The Native Americans weren't especially different from any other nomadic tribal sorts of cultures. They'd use up the resources they could in an area, and move on.[/quote]
In fact, many Native American tribes weren't nomadic until after Europeans came and they lost their land, the ecology was changed, and horses were introduced.

Many tribes also never really became nomadic, as in they didn't wander around for food intentionally. Some were settled, but then moved as Europeans moved in, etc. until they were wiped out or were able to settle somewhere the Europeans didn't go.
 
[quote name='SpazX']But can you tell me with a straight face that the boy didn't target the somali students because of their religion with the intention of insulting their religion? Can you tell me that when the majority group does something like that to a minority group it doesn't create tension between the groups that can then escalate to more violence? Is that then not a more serious crime?[/quote]

If the minority views the actions of one boy and the people who found his prank funny as indicative of the whole and then brought it up at the next Somali Muslim meeting, I'll cop to what you said if you cop to them being TEH RACIST.

Seriously though, is the law SUPPOSED to punish increasing the "tension" (Scare quotes used to signify a very tenuous legal definition) between groups? How is that its domain? Couldn't the same be said if the boy picked on a group of fat students, increasing strife between fat and thin? Handicapped and non? Deaf?

In addition, wouldn't the perceived preferential treatment of the victim group by the administration also increase resentment towards them?

In fact, many Native American tribes weren't nomadic until after Europeans came and they lost their land, the ecology was changed, and horses were introduced.

Many tribes also never really became nomadic, as in they didn't wander around for food intentionally. Some were settled, but then moved as Europeans moved in, etc. until they were wiped out or were able to settle somewhere the Europeans didn't go.
Click to expand...

We're getting sidetracked. The only thing I'm interested in is that the belief that Native Americans were somehow at one with nature and never overconsumed because of some heightened awareness with Gaia or whatnot is false, and even that as a tangent related to lazy public education.
 
evanft is a child. What can I say? There has to be someone at the bottom rung even on the internets.

Msut, come on. That's not fair. You know how much it turns me on when you do what you usually do. Whenever you show that hot, HOT complete lack of intellectual consistency you have, that slavish devotion to your own narrative... ooh, sets my heart aflutter.

And then, when you, completely without irony, accuse me of being a mindless Bushbot; a charge made of such deep willful ignorance and equivocation... a charge that shows that you have the intellectual depth of a thimble... Oh, man, I just want to melt in your arms.

[quote name='Ikohn4ever']I guess u have no idea what happens when you bring flora and fauna from a different ecosystem to a new environment, it can decimate it and take over, very similar to what the Europeans did[/quote]

And yet, we still eat plants today that are grown in areas that they weren't native to. Inconceivable.

I bet the Native Americans brought them over. They're the only ones who truly were one with nature and could understand which plants were kosher.

Please, the ecosystem will adapt. The short term changes will be shocking, but if you think the ecosystem came into existence in perfect harmony and the SLIGHTEST TOUCH could RUPTURE THE ENTIRE FOOD CHAIN, you are misguided. Civilization would not have come this far if we were too afraid to take control of our environment and add to it what we needed for food.
 
[quote name='RollingSkull']If the minority views the actions of one boy and the people who found his prank funny as indicative of the whole and then brought it up at the next Somali Muslim meeting, I'll cop to what you said if you cop to them being TEH RACIST.[/quote]

That's where the reaction and punishment comes in. If the boy is not punished accordingly and it isn't taken seriously it would be easy for the Somali's to think that the whites there don't care how they are treated. Like the Somali boy was saying in the article, the disapproval of the action by other kids reassured him that it was not acceptable.

[quote name='RollingSkull'] Seriously though, is the law SUPPOSED to punish increasing the "tension" (Scare quotes used to signify a very tenuous legal definition) between groups? How is that its domain? Couldn't the same be said if the boy picked on a group of fat students, increasing strife between fat and thin? Handicapped and non? Deaf?[/quote]

That depends on the case, don't try to make it a slippery slope when you know that some things are more relevant than others. Something that is done with the intention of turning one group against another and causing more violence should be punished more than one that is not.

[quote name='RollingSkull'] In addition, wouldn't the perceived preferential treatment of the victim group by the administration also increase resentment towards them?[/quote]

People almost always will view the treatment as preferential if they lose (or lose vicariously through whichever party they agree with) anyway.
 
[quote name='SpazX']That's where the reaction and punishment comes in. If the boy is not punished accordingly and it isn't taken seriously it would be easy for the Somali's to think that the whites there don't care how they are treated. Like the Somali boy was saying in the article, the disapproval of the action by other kids reassured him that it was not acceptable.[/quote]
The same could be said for any prankster and his victim. I don't see why this instance means more for a Muslim than for ANY other potential target of a prankster. Any target of the prankster could makes some prejudiced judgement about people like that prankster. Why does the burden fall heavier on the administration to punish more severely if the prankster is white and the victims are a specific victim group? I'm not saying the kid shouldn't have been punished, but it isn't like he slipped pork into their meals. He threw it down in a bag on the table.

That depends on the case, don't try to make it a slippery slope when you know that some things are more relevant than others. Something that is done with the intention of turning one group against another and causing more violence should be punished more than one that is not.
Click to expand...
But what it should be doing is not what it is actually doing. An action counts as a hate crime if, through subjective judgement, race is defined as a motivating factor, which puts the onus on the defense to disprove motive (Something evaluated subjectively enough that the humor I take from the nigger word censor could be enough to prove motive should I later commit a crime against a black individual.), and gives litigious members of the specified victim groups a weapon that could be used maliciously.

I've never seen hate crimes phrased as specifically dealing with the nebulous concept of making groups dislike each other more. Maybe I'm a little slow, but that isn't a crime in and of itself.

People almost always will view the treatment as preferential if they lose (or lose vicariously through whichever party they agree with) anyway.
Click to expand...
Only hate crimes phrase that treatment as a function of one's victim group status. Only hate crimes define out specific victim groups.
 
[quote name='RollingSkull']Whenever you show that lack of intellectual consistency you have, that slavish devotion to your own narrative.

And then, when you, completely without irony, accuse me of being a mindless Bushbot; a charge made of such deep willful ignorance and equivocation... a charge that shows that you have the intellectual depth of a thimble[/QUOTE]

There would not be a problem if you were not such a dishonest nutjob .
 
[quote name='RollingSkull']Fox News dipwad reporters[/QUOTE]

When using a phrase like this in a posting, is it not a requirement that the name "Shepard Smith" be somewhere close to it?
 
[quote name='RollingSkull']Furthermore, I think that sort of knee-jerk nonjudgementalism (How dare you presume to judge group X! You're not even ONE of them. You just think you're right because you don't understand their point of view!) has been a blight on the public education system for as long as I remember sitting through brain dead history class after brain dead history class, each ideologically hamstrung by falsehoods like SMALLPOX BLANKETS and a paradigm that can only allow self-flagellation, repeatedly advancing the notion that America has always been the one true force for evil in all of the world's history.[/QUOTE]

Actually, it's pretty carefully considered nonjudgementalism. I don't think I'm going out on a limb when I say that if you (the general "you") think you already know everything, you're not going to learn much. Simply picking a historical period or a different culture and giving them all the "benefit" of your modern perspective and society ("Boy, Germans sure were evil fifty years ago.
And how about the South in the Civil War? They must've been real stupid, not knowing it's wrong to keep slaves.") doesn't tell you much of value, like how perfectly typical people might have actual reasons for doing terrible things. So whatever your pet peeves about blankets (and apparently Muslims, if these boards are any judge), white American self-flagellation isn't an integral part of that paradigm. After all, if I'm a proponant of anything, it's consistency.
 
[quote name='RollingSkull']I am now beginning to see the logistical advantages of having a religion that considers receiving bad grades or being charged MSRP for video games to be a deeply offensive thing.[/QUOTE]

Hey, creating a religion wholecloth worked for L. Ron Hubbard; knock yourself out.

[quote name='RollingSkull']Seriously though. He placed a bag of meat on the table near them! It isn't like he called the lot of them sandniggers. (Just an excuse to use the nigger censor image. I love that.) Are you seriously advocating that we define out as suspendable actions based on the whims of the most offended subgroup? If so, I'm going out of my way to make a religion that forbids cutting in line, walking slowly, and standing in large groups to block a hallway.[/QUOTE]

Nobody's really aguing that this isn't an overreaction to some degree, as far as I can tell. It ain't perfect, but letting the people who aren't offended determine what's offensive to other people doesn't work, either. ("It should be okay to call people niggers; it doesn't offend me." "But you're white." "So?")

Consider the swastika -- despite 1,500 years of use as a buddhist and hindu sun symbol, it's highly offensive to jews. How do you tell what's fair use? It has to fall to intent, and this kid intended to be a douche and go after race/religion.

[quote name='RollingSkull']To take a different rhetorical track, I think school idiocy like this certainly isn't going to help those Muslims fit in. The message has been sent. They're special. Protected. You can't prank them like you can just about anyone else, or the administration will be on you like white on rice. Think that isn't going to inspire even more ill will from their classmates?[/QUOTE]

If he just wanted to clown on the somali kid, he should have made fun of his shoes or his backpack or any of the millions of things you can tear into a kid for. He didn't. So the message isn't that the Somali kid's special; it's that he's in the same category as, say, every black kid who wouldn't take someone dropping watermelon and fried chicken on his table.
 
[quote name='trq']Nobody's really aguing that this isn't an overreaction to some degree, as far as I can tell. It ain't perfect, but letting the people who aren't offended determine what's offensive to other people doesn't work, either. ("It should be okay to call people niggers; it doesn't offend me." "But you're white." "So?")[/quote]

What about the first amendment? I think that once people start to talk about this as a crime, then it's fair to cite the first amendment's right to free speech. There's no amendment guaranteeing your right to not be offended.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top