Andrewwhyte 1 #51 May 14, 2009 QuoteQuoteIt still seems to me that's situational ethics (and PR spin), not racism. Situational ethics? That’s deciding what’s right or wrong depending on the situation, But when the only variable is race, color, or religion what do we call that? Sorry I just think your trying to find a more nice and expectable to say racists. Situational ethics is not ethics at all but hypocrisy. What am i missing? You are missing the basic form of chauvinism; us verses them. The fact that Iraqis are brown has fuck all to do with it. The real reason these situations are different in people's minds is because they are not Americans. If I recall my history the Japanese were not the only people put to death for their treatment of white people during WWII. The Germans (can't get much more white than a Nazi) were as well. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
champu 1 #52 May 14, 2009 Quoteyou can believe that. now, i'm asking whether you believe that these laws have a racist outcome? What is a racist outcome exactly? Are you suggesting the very nature of causality has it in for minorities? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #53 May 14, 2009 QuoteQuoteyou can believe that. now, i'm asking whether you believe that these laws have a racist outcome? What is a racist outcome exactly? Are you suggesting the very nature of causality has it in for minorities? i'm informing you that the american criminal justice system is racist against blacks. why do you think that is?stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #54 May 14, 2009 >would you say that asians are black or white? They're more sort of a brownish-tan to me. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #55 May 14, 2009 Quote >would you say that asians are black or white? They're more sort of a brownish-tan to me. so definitely not black stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #56 May 14, 2009 Quote Quote >would you say that asians are black or white? They're more sort of a brownish-tan to me. so definitely not black Would you say that all racial issues are black and white? If you really think that asian-americans are some kind of privileged group, I suggest you google the name Korematsu and do some reading.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #57 May 14, 2009 QuoteQuote What am i missing? You are missing the basic form of chauvinism; us verses them. The fact that Iraqis are brown has fuck all to do with it. The real reason these situations are different in people's minds is because they are not Americans. If I recall my history the Japanese were not the only people put to death for their treatment of white people during WWII. The Germans (can't get much more white than a Nazi) were as well. Concur on the first order analysis, aka being the beaten enemy is the primary variable. At the same time, there are, imo, secondary variables. Have you read or heard of Edwars Said's Orientalism? /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bolas 5 #58 May 14, 2009 Quote Quote Quote I'll ask you this: do you think it's possible for someone to simultaneously believe that what was done in gitmo was torture and that it was wrong -AND- that the people that ended up in gitmo were there not because of their race? how about this: can someone believe that the war on drugs needs reform because it's not accomplishing what it intended -AND- that said war was NOT a devious plan to lock up black people? Of course not. It's obvious that only a racist would ask such questions. Quote The NAACP is accusing Wells Fargo and HSBC of forcing blacks into subprime mortgages while whites with identical qualifications got lower rates. Class-action lawsuits were to be filed against the banks Friday in federal court in Los Angeles, Austin Tighe, co-lead counsel for the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, told The Associated Press. Black homebuyers have been 3 1/2 times more likely to receive a subprime loan than white borrowers, and six times more likely to get a subprime rate when refinancing, Tighe said. Blacks still were disproportionately steered into subprime loans when their credit scores, income and down payment were equal to those of white homebuyers, he said. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/13/naacp-wells-fargo-hsbc-fo_n_174564.html So first the banks get sued for not providing credit to high credit risk people and now they are being sued for trying (and failing) to come up with a way to accomodate those lawsuits? I work in the FC industry. The only color they care about is green.Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #59 May 14, 2009 >so definitely not black Nope. I've never really met anyone who was black, even in Africa. A lot of really brownish people there though. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
champu 1 #60 May 14, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteyou can believe that. now, i'm asking whether you believe that these laws have a racist outcome? What is a racist outcome exactly? Are you suggesting the very nature of causality has it in for minorities? i'm informing you that the american criminal justice system is racist against blacks. why do you think that is? And we're back with the axiomatic assertions. Again, what exactly is a racist outcome? How disparate must a statistic across races be for someone to just know that the result was that of malicious racist forethought? When does that become "obvious" as you say? The reason I'm asking you these things is that I want you to realize what happens when you stand on a soap box and say, "listen up you ignorant, pig-headed racists... cause I know that's what you all are... you all need to start doing things the way -I- think they should be done." If you can't accept that people who disagree with you may not be racist, then you should go make a movie about your beliefs. You won't change a damn thing, but maybe you'll make some money off people who think the same way. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bolas 5 #61 May 14, 2009 Quote Quote Quote you can believe that. now, i'm asking whether you believe that these laws have a racist outcome? What is a racist outcome exactly? Are you suggesting the very nature of causality has it in for minorities? i'm informing you that the american criminal justice system is racist against blacks. why do you think that is? Not all, just those that choose to break the law. In a perfect world we'd have equal enforcement of all laws which I believe would lead to far less of them as people would be forced to comply or unite to get the law changed/removed. There wouldn't be the "usually get away with it, hope you don't get caught" apathetic element that is so prevalent today. Ex: If every time anyone sped, they got fined, etc. people wouldn't stand for that and speed limits would be changed/removed. Unless you feel that certain laws were only made to criminalize things the blacks were already doing? Personally, I think it's just an unfortunate case of "triage." What's one of the widespread and largest criminal elements? Drugs. Let's focus on that... "Maybe if we make more laws and have a dedicated group to fight them then when they get caught we have tougher sentences. I know, we'll call it a "war.""Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #62 May 14, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteyou can believe that. now, i'm asking whether you believe that these laws have a racist outcome? What is a racist outcome exactly? Are you suggesting the very nature of causality has it in for minorities? i'm informing you that the american criminal justice system is racist against blacks. why do you think that is? And we're back with the axiomatic assertions. Again, what exactly is a racist outcome? How disparate must a statistic across races be for someone to just know that the result was that of malicious racist forethought? When does that become "obvious" as you say? The reason I'm asking you these things is that I want you to realize what happens when you stand on a soap box and say, "listen up you ignorant, pig-headed racists... cause I know that's what you all are... you all need to start doing things the way -I- think they should be done." If you can't accept that people who disagree with you may not be racist, then you should go make a movie about your beliefs. You won't change a damn thing, but maybe you'll make some money off people who think the same way. a racist outcome is when nearly six times as many blacks as whites are in prison (in the same way as gravity is present when you drop the apple - nothing you can put your finger on - but there)stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #63 May 14, 2009 Quotea racist outcome is when nearly six times as many blacks as whites are in prison A racist outcome is one wherein different people are treated differently because of their skin colors. Trying to create "inmate parity" by creating some kind of racial balance in prisons would certainly be racist.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Darius11 12 #64 May 14, 2009 QuoteAn American who supports the US killing it's enemies, but opposes US soldiers being killed by those same adversaries is _not_ a racist--he's simply behaving in line with his own (perceived) self interest. That makes perfect sense to me we all have self-interest in mind however the ethical question posed if “insert action” is right or wrong should not be judged or swayed by self-interest. When an action X is deemed wrong by group A, but at a later date group A commits action X in self interest Action X is still wrong even if it served the interest of group A.I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #65 May 14, 2009 QuoteThat makes perfect sense to me we all have self-interest in mind however the ethical question posed if “insert action” is right or wrong should not be judged or swayed by self-interest. When an action X is deemed wrong by group A, but at a later date group A commits action X in self interest Action X is still wrong even if it served the interest of group A. Oh, sure. I absolutely agree with you. Evil is still evil, in anybody's name. But the fact that people are engaging in situational ethics, while reprehensible, does not make them racists.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Butters 0 #66 May 14, 2009 Quotea racist outcome is when nearly six times as many blacks as whites are in prison Having six times more theists than atheists is not proof that God exists ... do you have PROOF."That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Darius11 12 #67 May 14, 2009 Quote Oh, sure. I absolutely agree with you. Evil is still evil, in anybody's name. But the fact that people are engaging in situational ethics, while reprehensible, does not make them racists. I agree with you and I understand what you mean. That doesn't happen often in SC, but I totally get what you are talking about. It’s more I hate the guys bombing our guys then the fact that they are “brown” guys bombing are guys. If they were blue we still would not like them.I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #68 May 14, 2009 Quote a racist outcome is when nearly six times as many blacks as whites are in prison That is a racist comment all by itself. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Will_Evo 0 #69 May 14, 2009 I was not saying listen to me, you are playing my words. All I am saying is I can understand why torture, especially in the Islamic extremist cultures we are currently fighting, would be used. The people are not weak, and asking them nicely for information is a joke. -EvoZoo Crew Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #70 May 14, 2009 >The people are not weak, and asking them nicely for information is a joke. They are not weak, and asking them for information without torturing them WORKS. That has been proven. There are a lot of people on here who are more likely to get their views on the effectiveness of torture from Jack Bauer than from reports on intelligence accuracy. And while TV shows like 24 are fun to watch, they're not really reality. Going with the experts - people whose jobs it is to get intelligence from prisoners, and who save lives by doing so - seems like a better decision. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Capt.Slog 0 #71 May 14, 2009 QuoteWhy do people take the time responding to your CRAP? This thread is not worth my time. So why post in it, then? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Capt.Slog 0 #72 May 14, 2009 Quote I was not saying listen to me, you are playing my words. All I am saying is I can understand why torture, especially in the Islamic extremist cultures we are currently fighting, would be used. The people are not weak, and asking them nicely for information is a joke. -Evo The FACT (from many studies quoted by Marg) that torture is ineffective and has a tendency to produce "bad intel" is irrelevant to you, then? You DO realize that the techniques we use in SERE training were designed to get FALSE confessions (propaganda) from our people during the cold war, right? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Will_Evo 0 #73 May 15, 2009 QuoteQuote I was not saying listen to me, you are playing my words. All I am saying is I can understand why torture, especially in the Islamic extremist cultures we are currently fighting, would be used. The people are not weak, and asking them nicely for information is a joke. -Evo The FACT (from many studies quoted by Marg) that torture is ineffective and has a tendency to produce "bad intel" is irrelevant to you, then? You DO realize that the techniques we use in SERE training were designed to get FALSE confessions (propaganda) from our people during the cold war, right? First SERE training is in its most basic description, Survival,Evasion, RESISTANCE, Escape. Resistance being the ability, through training to avoid releasing sensitive subjects during torture. If anything the existence of SERE training is proof that torture works. Why would we have a training program in place to employ resistance in troops if we knew torture didnt work? Why then do you believe a person whose job relies on staying out of the spotlight. You don't think you could be getting fed propaganda yourself? Why would a person in the public light publicly say torture is a good thing? They aren't stupid, they know how to keep their jobs. Its an illegal act, and sometimes, especially during recent times, its in their interest to fight against themselves(aka against torture). Speaking out to the public actually creates a huge blanket of cover for them. Hiding close to home if you will. I refuse to believe that torture does not work, honestly its naive to say it doesn't. It has been used for thousands of years, and if it didn't work, I do believe the public would have knowledge of this. Let me ask you this, if torture, specifically water boarding worked, and you knew it, would you still be against it? if it became the most cost effective means of obtaining direct intel, that could saves hundreds or thousands of lives, your still against it? Just to make it clear, I am not saying torture every single person you gain custody of, what I am saying, is if other means of interrogating produces little to no intel from an individual who knows attack plans, IED emplacement plans, and or cell leader locations and movements, then I see no reason why we cannot resort to a more extreme means of gaining the intel. I personally would rather receive wrong coordinates for an IED than none at all, at least I tried to save an American life, its to easy to check it out...not to would be idiotic. -EvoZoo Crew Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #74 May 15, 2009 QuoteQuote I was not saying listen to me, you are playing my words. All I am saying is I can understand why torture, especially in the Islamic extremist cultures we are currently fighting, would be used. The people are not weak, and asking them nicely for information is a joke. -Evo The FACT (from many studies quoted by Marg) that torture is ineffective and has a tendency to produce "bad intel" is irrelevant to you, then? You DO realize that the techniques we use in SERE training were designed to get FALSE confessions (propaganda) from our people during the cold war, right? Hi kallend! Been kind of quiet lately. Are you busy?"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Will_Evo 0 #75 May 15, 2009 Just to make sure everyone knows, I am not trying to put anyone down, I like debate, its all in good nature for me-Evo Zoo Crew Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
