News The US is the light - both literally and metaphorically

[kyleb]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
Who said anything about respect?

well if find it disrespectful that you might consider me a thief if the color of my skin matches those who you have seen to be thiefs.

Originally posted by Hurkyl
If, 25% of people who look a certain way will shoplift and 1% of people who don't look that way shoplift, please tell me why a shopkeeper shouldn't be extra wary of people who look that way.

see above.

Originally posted by Hurkyl
You're using the term "bigot" where it doesn't apply; incorrectly applying a negative term to something doesn't make that thing negative. For example, if I called you a Nazi, that doesn't make you a bad person! Bigotry, as I previously mentioned, is unreasonable thoughts and actions, but the profiling mentioned above is perfectly reasonable.

you do realize that a member of the kkk would insist that his convictions are very reasonable, do you not? so is that acceptable to you then or are what do you see as the athority on what is reasonable?

Originally posted by Hurkyl
You've evaded the question! Should we embrace shoplifting simply because it's a form of diversity?

Hurkyl

that was not to be an evasion of the question, the fact is that stealing is a act of disrespect; therefore it is as if you are asking if we should be respectful of disrespect. you might as well chase your own tail.

 

[Hurkyl]

well if find it disrespectful that you might consider me a thief if the color of my skin matches those who you have seen to be thiefs.

Who said anything about considering you a thief?

Frankly, I'm sick of people who immediately jump to the worst conclusion from even the slightest hint of negativity. This topic deserves a full-fledged rant, but I don't have the energy to write one today!

A shopkeeper can heighten awareness and take protective measures without assuming that every black person is a thief. To put things in perspective, would you leave $1000 laying out on a table, invite a stranger into your home, and then leave him unattended? Of course not! You would take precautionary measures even though you don't think the stranger is a thief!

Going beyond that, I'm sick of people who think respect and trust is their inherent right as opposed to something you earn. For example, shopkeepers aren't obliged to trust everyone. Shopkeepers don't use the strictest security measures because the extra convenience provided by lax security improves customer satisfaction (and is cheaper), and that can offset the added risk of shoplifting. However, it would be unreasonable to expect the shopkeepers to relax security too far just so some soft-skinned person won't feel offended. One might say that you are the bigot here.


Before you hastily jump to conclusions from the above paragraph, I try to respect everyone, until they prove themselves unworthy, and even then I often try to treat them with respect even if I don't actually respect them. However, I think it's perfectly okay not to treat someone with respect until they earn it (notice I did not say it's okay to treat someone with disrespect until they earn respect).


Was I offended when I was a teenager and I recognized that me and my friends were under surveillance in stores? Nope, I knew why they did it, and it provided a nice opportunity to make some jokes. Am I offended that, despite being a safer driver than most people twice my age, I still pay extra car insurance due to my age? No, I understand the reasoning and (barring any unforseen disaster) next January my perfect driving record will have earned the insurance comanys' trust and will get lower rates.

Am I offended that people automatically assume the worst from the slightest hint of negativity? Nope... but it's nice to take the opportunity now and then to try to convince someone of their short-sightedenss and sometimes negativity can be a good thing.

see above.

I looked above. I didn't see a reason for the shopkeeper not to be wary of shoplifting demographics. It's unreasonable to expect the whole world to tip-toe around one person's soft-skin.

you do realize that a member of the kkk would insist that his convictions are very reasonable, do you not? so is that acceptable to you then or are what do you see as the athority on what is reasonable?

And so would a certain unnamed ruthless dictator!

Anyways, this the real trick on any philosophical discussion on ethics and morality; who gets to decide what is good and bad? As far as I know, philosophers don't have a great answer to this question... to bring this tangent closer to the original thread, I imagine that a powerful government answering to the will of millions of people and riddled with checks and balances would be a better answer to your question than most.

that was not to be an evasion of the question, the fact is that stealing is a act of disrespect; therefore it is as if you are asking if we should be respectful of disrespect. you might as well chase your own tail.

While you've avoided saying it, I think you've agreed that not all forms of diversity are wonderful. That's one of the main points I was trying to make:

(a) Not all forms of diversity are wonderful
(b) Effort should be made to eliminate the bad types of diversity

Hurkyl

 

[russ_watters]

Just out of curiosity Mr. Waters, have you ever lived anywheres else, other then the United States, as in, is your current expression of opinion based upon anything, as in experience of other countries, or is it simply You have lived in the US all your life and know nothing about living in any other countries, nothing what-so-ever.

Lived? No. I have visited about a dozen countries. Let me repeat (again) my opinion is not exclusionary - EVERY country in the western world is a member of the club I describe.

Canada actually has better "Freedom of Speech" laws then the US. We protect the rights of our older, and younger citizens, from the oppression/reprisal of hate speech that cause some of them, in your country, to remain silent, out of FEAR!

The purpose of good legislative governance is to legislate a social environment/atmosphere absent of fear!

What you describe is a REDUCED level of freedom where hate speech is outlawed to make people feel more comfortable. Thats arguably a good thing, but it is NOT more freedom, it is less.

This topic deserves a full-fledged rant, but I don't have the energy to write one today!

So that WASN'T a full fledged rant? Whoa.

I think that a lot of Americans(and people in general) see things from such a narrow view, that they can only see others through that filter. Many Americans completely ignore the negatives of America, American companies abroad, and American foriegn policy. They think, if it comes from the US , it must be good.

I mentioned some negatives in my opening post and acknolwedge every negative that someone posts. But what I object to is when people ONLY focus on the negatives and ignore the POSITIVES that America has done. Many people are of the opinion that if it comes from the US, it must be bad.

 

[kyleb]

i don't think this conversation is going to get anywhere Hurkyl, so i suppose will just leave it that. i say we should just agree to disagree if that is acceptable with you.

 

[Hurkyl]

i don't think this conversation is going to get anywhere Hurkyl, so i suppose will just leave it that. i say we should just agree to disagree if that is acceptable with you

Fair enough!


Hurkyl

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by russ_watters
Lived? No. I have visited about a dozen countries. Let me repeat (again) my opinion is not exclusionary - EVERY country in the western world is a member of the club I describe. What you describe is a REDUCED level of freedom where hate speech is outlawed to make people feel more comfortable. Thats arguably a good thing, but it is NOT more freedom, it is less.
the above is mine, the below is not, Mr. Watters, could you please bother to cite the author of your quotations such as to avoid confusing issues, people, and their opinions, as your style lends appearance that it is I who are "Ranting" which it clearly is NOT!

So that WASN'T a full fledged rant? Whoa. I mentioned some negatives in my opening post and acknolwedge every negative that someone posts. But what I object to is when people ONLY focus on the negatives and ignore the POSITIVES that America has done. Many people are of the opinion that if it comes from the US, it must be bad.

As for freedom from hate speech being, as you put it "less freedom' In my opinion you are very wrong, as it affords freedom to a much greater number of people to speak without fear, following the very purpose of legislative governance.

It affords much greater number of people that freedom, and resticts only the few who use hate speech to bully, propagate hatred, and usually focused at groups, rarely indiviuals. It is the "For the greater good of All" principal

 

[Nicool003]

Wow this topic sure took a turn for the worse in some ways...

 

[russ_watters]

could you please bother to cite the author of your quotations such as to avoid confusing issues, people, and their opinions, as your style lends appearance that it is I who are "Ranting" which it clearly is NOT!

You take this all far too seriously. And I would hope you can identify which quotes are from your post. Also your tone is very negative and accusatory. Try to avoid the appearance of personal attacks.

It is the "For the greater good of All" principal

Thats where the American philosophy is different. American rights (for the most part) are not group rights, they are protected for each individual separately. Also, a clarification - hate speech which makes threats is not protected free speech. Only hate speach that just expresses an opinion. Its a fine line, but to Americans an important one.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by russ_watters
You take this all far too seriously. And I would hope you can identify which quotes are from your post. Also your tone is very negative and accusatory. Try to avoid the appearance of personal attacks.

I can distinguish, but what about everyone else? or don't you think of "others" other then yourself?

Thats where the American philosophy is different. American rights (for the most part) are not group rights, they are protected for each individual separately. Also, a clarification - hate speech which makes threats is not protected free speech. Only hate speach that just expresses an opinion. Its a fine line, but to Americans an important one.

Protecting each individuals rights separately is not DEMOCRATIC, as Democracy has "Certain inalienable rights" afforded to all on an EQUAL basis, not on a "separate", and/or distinctive basis; "each individual separately" as you state.

American rights FOR THE MOST PART are GROUP RIGHTS, hence your amendments, but apparently you are unaware of your own governments constitution.

Nice one!

 

[russ_watters]

American rights FOR THE MOST PART are GROUP RIGHTS, hence your amendments, but apparently you are unaware of your own governments constitution.

Wow. You are breathtakingly wrong. Rights cannot be well protected unless they are protected on an individual basis. This is very important to understanding the American democracy. The American theory on the nature of rights comes from John Locke. I highly recommend reading some of his work. The fundamental rights are ALL individual rights:

"The first eight amendments provide protection of some of the most fundamental rights of the individual."
http://www.law.cornell.edu/topics/constitutional.html

"Locke believed that every individual was born with certain natural rights that were inalienablehttp://edusolution.com/myclassroom/studentwork/constitution/alex.htm

A quick google search will turn up hundreds of sites that say pretty much the same thing.

Allowing the government to apply rights on a group basis would mean they could sacrafice an individual to protect a group. They cannot. Our legal system for example is based on the idea that its better to let 100 guilty men go free than wrongly convict ONE.

 

[kyleb]

by "group" he was just referring the the "all men are created equal" thing russ.

 

[Siv]

Originally posted by Nicool003
Oh and by the way. The other war we are in now (War on Terror) Is part of the reason we are having a war with Iraq. He (saddam) is allied with osama bin laden and he also has terror sites and clear connections to the taliban and al queda. And the whole war on Terrorism is taking place because the pieces of crap (terrorists) took down the world trade center! Try that on for size! They (the terrorists, saddam, and his administration not the innocent people) brought this on themselves and I am sick and tired of you people arguing against this whole thing and the president!

With all due respect, Nicool, you're extremely naive.
Al Q and the extremist Arabs detest Saddam as much as they detest USA. Because Saddam is secular. And not a religious crazy.
Bush wants oil ... and he wants to win the 2004 elections. Thats the only reason for this war. No more. No less.

The USA deserves better. After all, they did not elect him.

- S.

 

[Mulder]

Originally posted by Siv
Bush wants oil ... and he wants to win the 2004 elections. Thats the only reason for this war. No more. No less.

*Yawn*

The USA deserves better. After all, they did not elect him.

*Yawn* again. Interesting though now that more than 70% support him..

 

[Siv]

Supporting post hoc, especially under crises etc, is not the same thing as electing.

And to me, the standard retorts of the "My country, right or wrong" faction are also boring ... <yawn>

- S.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by russ_watters
Wow. You are breathtakingly wrong. Rights cannot be well protected unless they are protected on an individual basis. This is very important to understanding the American democracy. The American theory on the nature of rights comes from John Locke. I highly recommend reading some of his work. The fundamental rights are ALL individual rights:

"The first eight amendments provide protection of some of the most fundamental rights of the individual."
http://www.law.cornell.edu/topics/constitutional.html

"Locke believed that every individual was born with certain natural rights that were inalienablehttp://edusolution.com/myclassroom/studentwork/constitution/alex.htm

A quick google search will turn up hundreds of sites that say pretty much the same thing.

Allowing the government to apply rights on a group basis would mean they could sacrafice an individual to protect a group. They cannot. Our legal system for example is based on the idea that its better to let 100 guilty men go free than wrongly convict ONE.

And the GROUP of people, individuals every one, that have all those rights are all Americans, all in ONE GROUP!\

What is semantic is the reality of the direction of the law, in court proceedings, but the rights that are, as per there assignation, assigned, are done so to the people, "We the People" (A group!) that are the American people.

(Could tell so much more, but out of time, here at the, well, shhhhhhhh! it is a secret location!)

 

[Alias]

I can't help it! I think I like hearing Mr.P talk more than he does.

 

[kyleb]

you can help it. trust me i know, as to me it seems quite the opposite.

 

[Alias]

Just yankin' his chain. He really is a good orator. I do respect that. I just wish there were more solutions, suggestions, and/or substance in his work.

 

[russ_watters]

And the GROUP of people, individuals every one, that have all those rights are all Americans, all in ONE GROUP!\

Wow, and I thought *I* was a talented hairsplitter. Yeah, a group is made up of individuals. But as the links I posted prove (do a google search if you don't like mine), the rights are protected on an INDIVIDUAL basis.

What is semantic is the reality of the direction of the law, in court proceedings, but the rights that are, as per there assignation, assigned, are done so to the people, "We the People" (A group!) that are the American people.

"We the people" isn't referring to rights, its referring to the group of people who agreed on the Constitution. The rights of the people (the individual people) are specified in the (aptly titled) "Bill of Rights." And the rejection of the concept of group rights is why affirmative action is shot down just about every time it is challenged in court.

Now there are laws that are designed to protect groups, but it must be noted that these are aimed at correcting group discrimination, not protecting group rights. Thats an important distinction.

by "group" he was just referring the the "all men are created equal" thing russ.

Not sure if that's what he meant or not, but its still not correct. That is from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. And it STILL is talking about every INDIVIDUAL is created equal to every other INDIVIDUAL.

The concept of individual rights is what separates western democracies from eastern governments. In China for example it was perfectly acceptable to run students over with tanks in order to protect the country as a whole from their unpopular opinion: protect the group at the expense of the individual. Here is an excellent discussion of eastern vs western philosophies on rights (eastern=group, western=individual): http://www.sspp.net/archive/papers/1 (1)thomassen1.htm

I presented some links, if you guys really want, I'll post a couple of pages of John Locke, but this isn't a poltical science class and I'm not a schoolteacher. Guys, this is such a key concept that to understand western philosophy at all you need to accept it.

 

[amp]

Nicool003, Russ

The history taught in US schools only shows the US in the best light, thru rose colored glasses. 'Lies my Teacher told me' is an eye opening read as the author disspells many myths about the US. Great site Kyleb, Dis Dan(formerly known as Audacious)many fine points, I would have said that, you beat me to it, Bravo. Adams correct about the hatred against the US by the majority of the world. Its not jealousy by a long shot.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Russ, I am not your teacher either, so it goes like this, your justice system is based upon jurisprudence, when one individual acquires a right, ALL of the individuals, that that person is a member of, (the society that is American society) AQUIRE that right!

Back to that group again.

As I pointed out, it is in the semantic of direction of law that your court system tends to view all issue of cases of rights as being offset in balance towards the individuals rights over the groups right. I already know that!

The reality of the administration of law is such that when the rights are established it is for all of the people that the "Individual" rights apply.

And then in the courtroom, viewed 'as from the individual', it goes right back to the group as the "individual" rights are ceded to the entirety of society.

If you, as an individual, can acquire the 'legal right' to smoke marijuana, then everyone that meets the standard, that you set in your court case, acquires that same right, (Jurisprudence) the entire GROUP of them!

Without exception.

Without prejudice.

Without discrimination.

 

[russ_watters]

The history taught in US schools only shows the US in the best light, thru rose colored glasses

Amp, is that really surprising or even bad? And just to clarify, I *DID* learn about what we did to the Indians in high school.

The reality of the administration of law is such that when the rights are established it is for all of the people that the "Individual" rights apply.

Thank you. I agree that I am correct :) You know, when I am in error, I admit it when proven. You'd get more respect if you did the same.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally Boasted by russ_watters

Thank you. I agree that I am correct :) You know, when I am in error, I admit it when proven. You'd get more respect if you did the same.

Love it Russ, and thanks for the advice, here's a hope'in that you follow it!