• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Change of Subject: from Zimmerman to the larger issue

I wouldn't fight you much on Sharpton and Jackson. I could pick a fight with you over the Trayvon Martin case and the Presidents speech regarding it though. And I'm not really sure what you mean by his experiences holding back an entire race of people.

I'm not saying his experiences are what's holding them back. It's his use of them as excuses for bad behavior and the premature assumptions he makes about race. Gates got arrested because he was being uncooperative with a police officer who came upon him actually breaking into a house. You don't have to be black to be greeted with suspicion in that case, and any adult should see that. Instead, Gates acted like an ass and then Obama then acted like an ass by saying ""Now, I've – I don't know, not having been there and not seeing all the facts, what role race played in that. But I think it's fair to say, number one, any of us would be pretty angry; number two, that the Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home. And number three, what I think we know separate and apart from this incident is that there is a long history in this country of African-Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately. That's just a fact." His comments and actions on Trayvon Martin are on a whole 'nother level altogether. I'll happily go into that, but you said you didn't want to go there, so I won't.
 
I'm not saying his experiences are what's holding them back. It's his use of them as excuses for bad behavior and the premature assumptions he makes about race. Gates got arrested because he was being uncooperative with a police officer who came upon him actually breaking into a house. You don't have to be black to be greeted with suspicion in that case, and any adult should see that. Instead, Gates acted like an ass and then Obama then acted like an ass by saying ""Now, I've – I don't know, not having been there and not seeing all the facts, what role race played in that. But I think it's fair to say, number one, any of us would be pretty angry; number two, that the Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home. And number three, what I think we know separate and apart from this incident is that there is a long history in this country of African-Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately. That's just a fact." His comments and actions on Trayvon Martin are on a whole 'nother level altogether. I'll happily go into that, but you said you didn't want to go there, so I won't.

I understood what you meant. I was asking for clarification. Regarding the Presidents comments on the Trayvon Martin case. So, here is a fundamental difference I see between the way liberals see this kind of thing vs conservatives. It appears to me that conservatives, and apparently some moderates, see it as him making excuses. That seems to be a very simplistic interpretation. It smacks of this black and white, I'm right and you're wrong thinking on his part as if they are an effort to justify the attitudes and behaviors of black americans rather than explain their context. I see his words as an effort to help people who do not currently consider the greater context of black american experience and in doing so perhaps have compassion and empathy for the anguish they have earned of the years. A person can be copable but there can be circumstances that make the behavior easier to understand. When you understand someone and are compassionate and empathetic towards their circumstances you are less liking to be angry about the behavior. I think it aids communication and better serves an actual solution if we make that effort. Issues of this magnitude are far more complicated and layered than than a simple you vs me mentality, and efforts need to be made on both sides to understand and listen. There is plenty of responsibility to go around not only for being a part of the cause but also as a part of the solution.

It would be great to have a civil conversation about the Trayvon Martin case that is civil. I'm game.
 
I understood what you meant. I was asking for clarification. Regarding the Presidents comments on the Trayvon Martin case. So, here is a fundamental difference I see between the way liberals see this kind of thing vs conservatives. It appears to me that conservatives, and apparently some moderates, see it as him making excuses. That seems to be a very simplistic interpretation. It smacks of this black and white, I'm right and you're wrong thinking on his part as if they are an effort to justify the attitudes and behaviors of black americans rather than explain their context. I see his words as an effort to help people who do not currently consider the greater context of black american experience and in doing so perhaps have compassion and empathy for the anguish they have earned of the years. A person can be copable but there can be circumstances that make the behavior easier to understand. When you understand someone and are compassionate and empathetic towards their circumstances you are less liking to be angry about the behavior. I think it aids communication and better serves an actual solution if we make that effort. Issues of this magnitude are far more complicated and layered than than a simple you vs me mentality, and efforts need to be made on both sides to understand and listen. There is plenty of responsibility to go around not only for being a part of the cause but also as a part of the solution.

It would be great to have a civil conversation about the Trayvon Martin case that is civil. I'm game.

For Trayvon Martin, it's much, much worse. The president got personally involved in a legal case where a teenage black kid was involved in a felony assault & battery on someone, and got shot in the process. Rather than allowing black people the dignity of holding Trayvon Martin responsible for his actions, he blames everything else he can possibly bring into the discussion. The law, the cops, the attorneys, George Zimmerman, George Zimmerman's gun, the guy who made George Zimmerman's gun, the shop keeper who sold George Zimmerman his gun, George Zimmerman's mom for having given birth to George Zimmerman etc. Everything and everyone except the one person who did the wrong thing. Yes, I'm exaggerating, but how is this not HUGELY offensive to you?
 
For Trayvon Martin, it's much, much worse. The president got personally involved in a legal case where a teenage black kid was involved in a felony assault & battery on someone, and got shot in the process. Rather than allowing black people the dignity of holding Trayvon Martin responsible for his actions, he blames everything else he can possibly bring into the discussion. The law, the cops, the attorneys, George Zimmerman, George Zimmerman's gun, the guy who made George Zimmerman's gun, the shop keeper who sold George Zimmerman his gun, George Zimmerman's mom for having given birth to George Zimmerman etc. Everything and everyone except the one person who did the wrong thing. Yes, I'm exaggerating, but how is this not HUGELY offensive to you?

How did he get personally involved to any extent greater than past presidents have when dealing with an issue that has created this level of turmoil? (I am not claiming that he has not gotten more involved. I am asking you for more information on the statement you made)

What did he say in his speech that you call blaming?
 
What do you mean by societal mores (examples) and how does this relate to the disintegration of the family?

I mean social mores under the sociological definition of the term: “The customs and conventions embodying the fundamental values of a group or society” (Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.). Examples: Attitudes regarding premarital sex and having children out of wedlock. When you take a sample of kids raised under different parental scenarios, you tend to get better outcomes where the children were raised by two parents, whether those parents be biological parents or stepparents.

When you say "many of these trends began concurrently with the rise of the modern welfare state: you seem to be implying a cause and effect relationship. Are you and if yes then how would that work?

I’m saying they occurred at the same time. I can’t say whether it was coincidence or not. We also had the Sexual Revolution and the Women’s Rights Movement; the Counterculture Movement; the loosening of laws pertaining to divorce; a decline in religiosity among the lower classes; and probably a few more events along the way that I can't think of offhand that shifted attitudes concerning some of these behaviors. Certainly, societal mores tend to encourage desirable behaviors while discouraging undesirable ones. The modern welfare state permitted women some independence when it came to having kids, but then so did the widespread entrance of women into the labor force. All I know is rich people as a class behave differently than poor people and, increasingly, what constitutes a middle class these days. Why this is so I can't say. Maybe it's a little bit of everything.

Based on the following statements regarding the "upper class": I infer from that that it is your belief that education plays a crucial role in creating and maintaining a healthy family. Is that correct?

I would say that maintaining a healthy family plays a crucial role in creating an educated kid. Many among the more affluent tend to be almost fanatical about it, even reading to their fetuses and jockeying to make sure little Asher or Charlotte gets into the right preschool so they can then get into the right prep school so they can then get into the Ivy League or Stanford and save the planet. But when a parent completely abdicates to the state her responsibility to educate her children she often ends up with a second-rate "product." Then as well she likely smoked when she was pregnant.
 
Last edited:
How did he get personally involved to any extent greater than past presidents have when dealing with an issue that has created this level of turmoil? (I am not claiming that he has not gotten more involved. I am asking you for more information on the statement you made)

What did he say in his speech that you call blaming?
Never once did he acknowledge that Trayvon Martin had a hand in his death. Not once did he mention the simplest solution that would've prevented Trayvon getting shot by George Zimmerman. None of his solutions involved an honest discussion about why this incident happened. His speech sounded nice and not too different from the philosophy you and I agreed on earlier, but in the context of this case, there are some glaring omissions that are purposeful (IMHO).
 
Never once did he acknowledge that Trayvon Martin had a hand in his death. Not once did he mention the simplest solution that would've prevented Trayvon getting shot by George Zimmerman. None of his solutions involved an honest discussion about why this incident happened. His speech sounded nice and not too different from the philosophy you and I agreed on earlier, but in the context of this case, there are some glaring omissions that are purposeful (IMHO).

Were purposeful?
 
I am currently reading a book on human development, and some of the information in the book pertains to this discussion.

There is a good point to be considered. Is the discrepancy between whites and blacks with regards to convictions have to do with an unfair justice system or a group of people that commit more crimes? It is a legitamate question, and there is only one way to find out in my opinion.

There is a general trend in cultures around the world. Students who are placed in the lower 30 percentile of socioeconomic class in relative wealth will score lower on cognition tests compared to students in another culture that are in the higher percentile of another culture, even though the overall value of wealth is about the same. This coincides with a study done by the United Nations. As economic inequality increases the overall health of the entire population decreases regardless of class. This is because there is a psychosocial stress with regards to class inequality, and it becomes more intense as the inequality increases. But there is more to it than that. Children in impoverished environments not only have less overall stimulation, but have less interaction with adults for various reasons, like work. Plus, in some cultures there is a trend where caretakers won't even talk to their children for the first two years! This drastically affects the development in language, which interestingly enough allows the brain to develop other talents as well, such as inference and morality. As the child ages, the Corpus Colosseum becomes strengthened, which allows the eventual development of empathy. If there is less schematics, prototypes, etc. in the brain, that means the development of these areas will be altered. With less vocabulary, things maybe looked at a more extreme perception. With a center devoted to empathy and morality less developed, this may explain certain behaviors and thinking that leads to crime.

Finally, when fathers are removed from the equation, it is known in boys especially, there is an increase of the hormone testosterone. This increases aggression. Compound that with parents who lack interaction and are busy with jobs, the child is more destined to be independent and follow their own path. The problem, is that children tend for the most part do what is easiest if they are not instructed properly. With a lack of development of morality and empathy, the easy thing to do would be to steal, kill, sell drugs, etc.. This is just a few of the many explanations that exist on how poverty affects behavior, and I am sure scientists don't know it all. I wish I knew more, because I still have some questions.

The author focuses on the biology of it all, but does not get into the thought process or how the culture affects the development, so far. It is obvious to me, that black culture promotes crime. Just look at rap videos.

One more point. Throughout all the cultures of the world, it is apparent as there is more income inequality, the bottom of the ladder feel there are marginalized from the majority. (Made to be seemed unimportant, less than human) So there are some possibilities to this. Part of crime is to survive, but it also forces the middle to upper class to pay attention to them. It could also be a way to rebel against the very people that have seemingly screwed their immediate as well as ancestors lives.

So how do we find out for sure? Because the evidence is strong that economic inequality breeds this behavior.

It's to decrease the gap of income inequality. I am not going to share my opinions nor thoughts on this matter. But it is the only way I see in proving or disproving these hypotheses.
 
Were purposeful?

Matter of perspective. He has yet to bring them up, and he's not going to, so take your pick--are/were/will be. If I'm starting to seem confrontational, sorry about that. I'm tired and trying to have a discussion with rabbit is irritating.
 
I am currently reading a book on human development, and some of the information in the book pertains to this discussion.

There is a good point to be considered. Is the discrepancy between whites and blacks with regards to convictions have to do with an unfair justice system or a group of people that commit more crimes? It is a legitamate question, and there is only one way to find out in my opinion.

There is a general trend in cultures around the world. Students who are placed in the lower 30 percentile of socioeconomic class in relative wealth will score lower on cognition tests compared to students in another culture that are in the higher percentile of another culture, even though the overall value of wealth is about the same. This coincides with a study done by the United Nations. As economic inequality increases the overall health of the entire population decreases regardless of class. This is because there is a psychosocial stress with regards to class inequality, and it becomes more intense as the inequality increases. But there is more to it than that. Children in impoverished environments not only have less overall stimulation, but have less interaction with adults for various reasons, like work. Plus, in some cultures there is a trend where caretakers won't even talk to their children for the first two years! This drastically affects the development in language, which interestingly enough allows the brain to develop other talents as well, such as inference and morality. As the child ages, the Corpus Colosseum becomes strengthened, which allows the eventual development of empathy. If there is less schematics, prototypes, etc. in the brain, that means the development of these areas will be altered. With less vocabulary, things maybe looked at a more extreme perception. With a center devoted to empathy and morality less developed, this may explain certain behaviors and thinking that leads to crime.

Finally, when fathers are removed from the equation, it is known in boys especially, there is an increase of the hormone testosterone. This increases aggression. Compound that with parents who lack interaction and are busy with jobs, the child is more destined to be independent and follow their own path. The problem, is that children tend for the most part do what is easiest if they are not instructed properly. With a lack of development of morality and empathy, the easy thing to do would be to steal, kill, sell drugs, etc.. This is just a few of the many explanations that exist on how poverty affects behavior, and I am sure scientists don't know it all. I wish I knew more, because I still have some questions.

The author focuses on the biology of it all, but does not get into the thought process or how the culture affects the development, so far. It is obvious to me, that black culture promotes crime. Just look at rap videos.

One more point. Throughout all the cultures of the world, it is apparent as there is more income inequality, the bottom of the ladder feel there are marginalized from the majority. (Made to be seemed unimportant, less than human) So there are some possibilities to this. Part of crime is to survive, but it also forces the middle to upper class to pay attention to them. It could also be a way to rebel against the very people that have seemingly screwed their immediate as well as ancestors lives.

So how do we find out for sure? Because the evidence is strong that economic inequality breeds this behavior.

It's to decrease the gap of income inequality. I am not going to share my opinions nor thoughts on this matter. But it is the only way I see in proving or disproving these hypotheses.

Which came first, the unproductive behavior or the income inequality?
 
I am currently reading a book on human development, and some of the information in the book pertains to this discussion.

There is a good point to be considered. Is the discrepancy between whites and blacks with regards to convictions have to do with an unfair justice system or a group of people that commit more crimes?

More specifically, does poverty in and of it self lead to these bad outcomes? After WWII, about 40% of the U.S. population lived in "poverty." Yet poor kids were raised by two parents who were married, they were fed, they went to church, the mother read them bedtime stories, etc. Some went on to found companies and achieve great things. We see immigrants who arrive in this country with nothing, and yet within a few years they're founding businesses and their kids become valedictorians. So I tend to believe outcomes are more a function of parental involvement and values than how much money the parents make. I mean, you can have all the early childhood nutrition and Head Start programs you want, but if parental stimulation consists of morning and evening beatings by mom's boyfriend, then I don't think you'll have a pleasant outcome.
 
More specifically, does poverty in and of it self lead to these bad outcomes? After WWII, about 40% of the U.S. population lived in "poverty." Yet poor kids were raised by two parents who were married, they were fed, they went to church, the mother read them bedtime stories, etc. Some went on to found companies and achieve great things. We see immigrants who arrive in this country with nothing, and yet within a few years they're founding businesses and their kids become valedictorians. So I tend to believe outcomes are more a function of parental involvement and values than how much money the parents make. I mean, you can have all the early childhood nutrition and Head Start programs you want, but if parental stimulation consists of morning and evening beatings by mom's boyfriend, then I don't think you'll have a pleasant outcome.

It is not absolute wealth that is the factor, but relative wealth.
 
It is not absolute wealth that is the factor, but relative wealth.

I don't think that's it, either. I've been to countries were I saw really poor people who'd slit their own wrists before ever stealing a dime.
 
I am currently reading a book on human development, and some of the information in the book pertains to this discussion.

There is a good point to be considered. Is the discrepancy between whites and blacks with regards to convictions have to do with an unfair justice system or a group of people that commit more crimes? It is a legitamate question, and there is only one way to find out in my opinion.

There is a general trend in cultures around the world. Students who are placed in the lower 30 percentile of socioeconomic class in relative wealth will score lower on cognition tests compared to students in another culture that are in the higher percentile of another culture, even though the overall value of wealth is about the same. This coincides with a study done by the United Nations. As economic inequality increases the overall health of the entire population decreases regardless of class. This is because there is a psychosocial stress with regards to class inequality, and it becomes more intense as the inequality increases. But there is more to it than that. Children in impoverished environments not only have less overall stimulation, but have less interaction with adults for various reasons, like work. Plus, in some cultures there is a trend where caretakers won't even talk to their children for the first two years! This drastically affects the development in language, which interestingly enough allows the brain to develop other talents as well, such as inference and morality. As the child ages, the Corpus Colosseum becomes strengthened, which allows the eventual development of empathy. If there is less schematics, prototypes, etc. in the brain, that means the development of these areas will be altered. With less vocabulary, things maybe looked at a more extreme perception. With a center devoted to empathy and morality less developed, this may explain certain behaviors and thinking that leads to crime.

Finally, when fathers are removed from the equation, it is known in boys especially, there is an increase of the hormone testosterone. This increases aggression. Compound that with parents who lack interaction and are busy with jobs, the child is more destined to be independent and follow their own path. The problem, is that children tend for the most part do what is easiest if they are not instructed properly. With a lack of development of morality and empathy, the easy thing to do would be to steal, kill, sell drugs, etc.. This is just a few of the many explanations that exist on how poverty affects behavior, and I am sure scientists don't know it all. I wish I knew more, because I still have some questions.

The author focuses on the biology of it all, but does not get into the thought process or how the culture affects the development, so far. It is obvious to me, that black culture promotes crime. Just look at rap videos.

One more point. Throughout all the cultures of the world, it is apparent as there is more income inequality, the bottom of the ladder feel there are marginalized from the majority. (Made to be seemed unimportant, less than human) So there are some possibilities to this. Part of crime is to survive, but it also forces the middle to upper class to pay attention to them. It could also be a way to rebel against the very people that have seemingly screwed their immediate as well as ancestors lives.

So how do we find out for sure? Because the evidence is strong that economic inequality breeds this behavior.

It's to decrease the gap of income inequality. I am not going to share my opinions nor thoughts on this matter. But it is the only way I see in proving or disproving these hypotheses.

Matter of perspective. He has yet to bring them up, and he's not going to, so take your pick--are/were/will be. If I'm starting to seem confrontational, sorry about that. I'm tired and trying to have a discussion with rabbit is irritating.

More specifically, does poverty in and of it self lead to these bad outcomes? After WWII, about 40% of the U.S. population lived in "poverty." Yet poor kids were raised by two parents who were married, they were fed, they went to church, the mother read them bedtime stories, etc. Some went on to found companies and achieve great things. We see immigrants who arrive in this country with nothing, and yet within a few years they're founding businesses and their kids become valedictorians. So I tend to believe outcomes are more a function of parental involvement and values than how much money the parents make. I mean, you can have all the early childhood nutrition and Head Start programs you want, but if parental stimulation consists of morning and evening beatings by mom's boyfriend, then I don't think you'll have a pleasant outcome.

So what about considering the notion that there are multiple factors that increase the chances of someones’ life going sideways? People are individuals and everything from family to nutrition and diet, community to biology plays a part in what kind of a person they evolve into. Obviously there is tremendous value in uncovering causes but to what end? To determine if they are deserving of help? Are we trying to figure out who to blame or how to solve the problem?

I personally am beginning to think that one of the first and most impactful things we can do to make an immediate change in these communities is take a look at or who we imprison and why. Particularly with regard to the
“War On Drugs”. Here is some interesting information I found:


• federal prison population continued to rise, with rates of drug and immigration offenders that eclipse those held for violent crimes
o almost half of federal inmates – 48 percent – were in prison for drug crimes
o 11 percent were held for immigration offenses

• Between 6.6% and 7.5% of all black males ages 25 to 39 were imprisoned in 2011, which were the highest imprisonment rates among the measured sex, race
• Among prisoners ages 18 to 19, black males were imprisoned at more than 9 times the rate of white males
• (Systemic Bias) "Importantly, representation of African-Americans in jails and prisons was nearly twice that of both Drug Courts and probation, and was also substantially higher among all arrestees for drug-related offenses. …… systemic differences in plea-bargaining, charging or sentencing practices might be having the practical effect of denying Drug …….Further research is needed to determine whether racial or ethnic minority citizens are being denied the opportunity
• Among African American children, 1.2 million, or about 11 percent, had a parent incarcerated by 2008." –
• (Odds of Incarceration for Marijuana in CA) "Compared to Non-blacks, California’s African-American population are 4 times more likely to be arrested for marijuana, 12 times more likely to be imprisoned for a marijuana felony arrest, and 3 times more likely to be imprisoned per marijuana possession arrest. Overall, as Figure 3 illustrates, these disparities accumulate to 10 times’ greater odds of an African-American being imprisoned for marijuana than other racial/ethnic groups
• Human Rights Watch’s analysis of prison admission data for 2003 revealed that relative to population, blacks are 10.1 times more likely than whites to be sent to prison for drug offenses.
• When incarceration rates by State (excluding Federal inmates) are estimated separately by gender, race, and Hispanic origin …black rates 5-1/2 times higher than white rates;
• At the start of the 1990s, the U.S. had more Black men (between the ages of 20 and 29) under the control of the nation's criminal justice system than the total number in college. This and other factors have led some scholars to conclude that, "crime control policies are a major contributor to the disruption of the family, the prevalence of single parent families, and children raised without a father in the ghetto, and the 'inability of people to get the jobs still available.'"


This is particularly interesting when you consider this, when I researched illicit drug use by race consistently there was only a 1 to 2 increase in the African American Community or it was actually lower.

Study: Whites More Likely to Abuse Drugs Than Blacks
Study: Whites More Likely to Abuse Drugs Than Blacks | TIME.com
The Buyers - Who Are America's Drug Users? | Drug Wars | FRONTLINE | PBS

Other sources;
Race and Prison | Drug War Facts
Poverty, Incarceration and Violent Crime in the United States
Almost Half Of Federal Prisoners Held For Drug Crimes | ThinkProgress
 
There is only one way to find out in my opinion. And that is to close income inequality and observe the result behavior over time.
And the only way to do that is to give someone or some group the authority to determine what share of the wealth you've earned. Are you advocating that?
 
Never once did he acknowledge that Trayvon Martin had a hand in his death. Not once did he mention the simplest solution that would've prevented Trayvon getting shot by George Zimmerman. None of his solutions involved an honest discussion about why this incident happened. His speech sounded nice and not too different from the philosophy you and I agreed on earlier, but in the context of this case, there are some glaring omissions that are purposeful (IMHO).

I don't think he was addressing the case, I think he was speaking to the issues that have risen around it. That being the case, it would not make sense for him to speak directly about the case other than to support the juries decision and acknowledge that the system worked as it is designed which I believe he did.
 
The point....is that continued debate over the "verdict" is utterly unproductive, unless of course your goal to have an endless street brawl. Then, by all means, bicker away. I, for one, would like to see the conversation elevated to a discussion of the larger issues this cased has touched on and are really at the heart of the whole circus anyway. Did you read this article?

What larger issues did this case touch on in your opinion, and can you explain how and in what way they touched upon these larger issues with something from the facts of the case?
 
Caine;1062115697[QUOTE said:
]Why have you assumed it doesn't?
[/QUOTE]




Does a poor man get the same justice that a rich man gets?




"The law,in it's majestic equality, forbids the rich, as well as the poor, to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread." Anatole France
 
Awesome.
First of all, I will be a complete hypocrite and say this one thing about the verdict, I understand and accept it.

The point at which I part company with many who call themselves Zimmerman supporters (I do not call myself a TM supporter) is that I think, whether you see the connection or not, for many many people this case brought several legitimate frustrations to the surface. For example; inequities in the justice system,
How are inequities in the justice system brought to surface via THIS case? Martin was not on trial. You understand and accept the verdict. WTF does this have to do with inequities in the justice system? We have proof that a black man killed an unarmed white teen in self defense and was acquitted... thus ending the argument that if the races were reversed the result would have been different. So please, explain WTF this case has to do with "Inequities in the Justice System".
the realities of racial profiling,
When you can prove George Zimmerman racially profiled Trayvon Martin then I will conceed that you have a point that this case has anything to do with that "frustration". Until then, people who are frustrated about it are acting upon their OWN prejudices that they brought into this case, and MAYBE they should look at themselves and fix themselves before crying out about this case being the reason to fix a problem that wasn't present in it to start with.
the racism that still exists in our country and how it inhibits truly equal opportunity,
This case has N-O-T-H-I-N-G to do with that. I understand that there is a belief that institutional racism exists (because regular ass individual racism will ALWAYS exist) but when you bring it into THIS case as a means to talk about it....... others aren't going to take you seriously because it has NOTHING to do with this case, its just going to look like ridiculous race baiting and assuming racism exists where it didn't. Do you really want to have the conversation at time when it just makes you look like your going to assume racism is in everything? I don't think it would be quite productive.

the flaws in the stand your ground,
I don't see any flaws in stand your ground. Any flaws seen are the result of someone assuming the facts of this case are different than what they are.
the problems of drugs and violence in African American communities,
I don't see what that has to do with this case either. This one one young man who had used some drugs in his life and was fighting someone. I don't allow myself for a second to think that he is a "marker" for the rest of "African American" communities.
frustrations with affirmative action.
Again has nothing to do with this case.
 
Does a poor man get the same justice that a rich man gets?

Does a poor man get the same car as a rich man?
Does a poor man get the same medical care as a rich man?

You get what you can afford............If you want to make the requirements for being a lawyer many hard years of legal study and expensive schooling.... you best believe good quality service is not going to come cheap.
 
Does a poor man get the same car as a rich man?
Does a poor man get the same medical care as a rich man?

You get what you can afford.
...........If you want to make the requirements for being a lawyer many hard years of legal study and expensive schooling.... you best believe good quality service is not going to come cheap.




That doesn't sound like justice to me.




"A law that is not just is no law at all." ~ St. Augustine
 
It is quite evident that there is wealth inequality in our country, which causes gaps in society, which tend to perpetuate how persons from another race affect our society as a whole.
Attitudes toward minority groups can sometimes be extremely negative because of perceptions, which then lead to a collective idea of racism.
Forty-four million Americans are uninsured, therefore, it makes sense that not every one receives the same medical care, and some receive none at all. In a rich country like ours, so many children go to bed hungry at night. To add to their misfortune, some children live in squalor with drug-addicted parents, a who among us is there in their time of need?
I'm reminded of the story of Liz Murray, who went from homeless on the streets of New York, eating toothpaste, to become a graduate of Harvard.
I've been taught that we owe each other a mutual respect, regardless of our circumstances, and the greatest feeling is being able to reach down and help a child to stand up.
If our laws need to be changed, and they do, then it is our responsibility to act accordingly.
I don't believe as I've heard recently that all white people want to abuse or kill black people. That negative type of rhetoric will set us back and not allow us to go forward.
Education will break through fear.
 
Back
Top Bottom