>> ^KnivesOut:

The logic goes like this:
Allan stole a loaf of bread.
Allan is a thief.
Allan is black.
All blacks are thieves.
>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:blah blah blah I'm a racist.


Haha. He did it for the lulz.

The logic goes like this:

Allan stole a loaf of bread.
Allan is a thief.
Allan is black.
All blacks are thieves.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:blah blah blah I'm a racist.

This is my favorite haka. From the 1995 Rugby World Cup in South Africa. This was probably the best All Black team in history. Sean Fitzpatrick led the most fearsome Haka's. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GpTsPNwwms&feature=related

>> ^quantumushroom:

Wearing all-black does not make one a ninja.


Ninja, please.

Wearing all-black does not make one a ninja.

Firstly, about the RL busy stuff, I'm fine, I've just been moving and stuff, nothing bad, but thanks for caring

While I agree religion is more than dogma, I think i have a bit of a different perspective on it, religion is, or can be a large part of someone life, obviously, and in that sense it is, as you say a complex socio-cultural phenomen. but heres where i have a problem with the stuff you say:

If you look at the Bible, or the Koran, or the Buddhist sutras, the overarching message you see is one of love for fellow humankind: the Golden Rule. That is religion and that is what people should be practicing.

Really? Have you READ the bible? or the Koran? These books are not written with the golden rule as a model. Sure, there are some hints of that here and there, but the overall theme is something quite different. The message that these books emphasize is one of total obedience to god. Of course you dont have to, and most religious people dont, read or interpret it that way, but that is in fact the main focus of these books.

The empirical evidence we do have, though, shows religious people live longer, happier, and healthier lives overall.

Uh, really? where can this evidence be found? seriously? I live in Norway, one of the least religious countries in the world. We live longer,happier and healthier lives than most of the planet.

For every example that you might choose to offer, say the Inquisition or the 9/11 terror attacks, that supposedly show why religion needs to go I can offer you a historical counter-example like Martin Luther King, Jr. or Ghandi as to why religion is crucially important.

Ok, I completely agree that keeping scores here would be pointless, so lets think about this for a few seconds. Take MLK jr. Great guy, obviously, and yes, he was a preacher and certainly religious, by all means, and he also famously quoted the bible in his speeches. But answer me this: Was religion the thing that made him into what he was? Lets suppose he was an atheist, or lets say a muslim for that matter, would he have been totally lost without the wisdom of Moses, who famously said "Let my people go"? or the teachings of Jesus? You know what? I think MLK was a great guy, who fought for a great cause, and I think that independent of his religion. And we all know there were plenty of good arguments OUTSIDE of the bible for a civil rights movement, in fact, the bible doesnt even come around to condemning slavery. So its not really a religious thing, is it? I can say honestly and with a straight face that yes, i think a non-religious person could do what MLK did, (and in fact MLK was actually critized for having to many non-religious people in his circle at the time)

Now look at my side of the scoreboard. And I'll give you the challenge Christopher Hitchens has given many times: You have to name me a good act done or a good thing said, by a religious person, that doesnt have any secular, non-religious basis or potential argument in its favour. and then you have to come up with a bad or wicked thing said or done.. I dont even have to end the sentence.. You've already got several, stuff that you couldnt possibly do for ANY OTHER REASON then the religious one. Who would cut into their childrens genitals without a good medical reason?, who would discourage condom-use in countries where the % of aids victims are well into the 2-digits? what maniac would run an airplane into a skyscraper and think this act would give them 72 virgins in paradise? What sadistic bastard would stone a young girl to death because SHE was raped?

Well, You get my point. I think very large parts of what you call religion, I simply attribute to our normal, human behaviour. not to repeat the MLK point to much. But I think the feeling of injustice that he and all black americans felt at the time had nothing to do with religion, and i think that ultimately his rebellion against it had nothing to do with religion, and again, people listened and things finally changed, not because of religion, but because it was the right thing to do. Just like most Christians and jews refrain from killing people, not because a commandment says so, but because thats how we humans work. But still, there are those who think thats why we dont all just kill eachother, and even those who thinks thats why they dont kill their neighbour , but obviously, thats not it.

@BicycleRepairMan

I don't understand your arguments. For example, I'm not sure what your point is about "change." Religion changes because society changes. This is no different than technology replacing jobs that used to require manual labor. Do you think the guys who used to work on the assembly line "voluntarily" learned new job skills when automation replaced them? No, of course not. So, why is there something wrong with adapting to current circumstances? Whether the change is voluntary or not doesn't affect the argument of whether religion can be a useful tool in helping us find happiness in our lives, so I fail to see the relevance.

Next, dismissing entire religions because of the actions of a few individuals is just illogical. A few radical Muslims rammed jets into the World Trade Center, so all Muslims are terrorists (and Islam is evil)? A few priests molested children, so all priests are are child molesters (and Catholicism is evil)? A few black people have committed crimes, so all blacks are criminals? You strike me as an intelligent guy (judging from our previous conversations), surely you can see the problems with those arguments.

Finally, you dismiss religious work because they were written by our ancestors. Therefore, they couldn't possibly have anything relevant to say about our current lives right? Well then, how about the U.S. Constitution? There's a document that was written by our ancestors. Should we scrap that too? Couldn't possibly be relevant, right? After all, it hasn't changed in since it was written (though it has, of course, been added to).

The reason why we still cherish the Constitution is because of the wisdom it contains. That wisdom has been reinterpreted many times since the constitution was originally written--reinterpreted based on changes in both technology and society but never changed. In a similar manner, all of the religions have collected wisdom of what it means to be a human being and how to live happily. That wisdom too has been reinterpreted many times based on changing conditions.

I think that if, instead of railing against religion, you actually took the time to study it (study...not practice--I'm not proselytizing here) you would find that all of the major religions have important messages of wisdom to offer us about how to live our lives. Certainly people have mis-used and abused religion to further their own ends. Certainly people who claim to be religious have done terrible things. But in almost all cases you find that these people are not actually following the teachings of their own religion when they do these things--that they have hijacked the messages, distorted them, and used them for their own ends. I don't blame religion for that. I'm sorry to hear that you do, because like I said I think you're missing out.

My point is not to dispute that they are contracted people with licenses by the state or some such. I only wonder if you bunch all people into the prejudice "same thing to me" mind frame you apply to rent-a-cops. I mean, if you apply blanket concepts to them, can you really blame others for just as irrational applications to other peoples or occupations? Are all black people the same? All Jews? All farmers of the south? All..., wait, did I say you applied a prejudice assumption? Of course I did... You look at their uniform and your opinion---that they are all rent-a-fake-cops or rent-a-cops---is already set. Isn't that prejudice?
Okay, so back to my point. I never try and apply "same thing to me" principles to anyone or anything...

>> ^NordlichReiter:
>> ^Lawdeedaw:
Well, somehow I do not believe this monkey-of-a-non-special-police-officer has taken law enforcement training, and that he is given city wide jurisdiction which falls on this beach. Soooo, he is not a Company Police or Special Police as such. In other words, he has no arrest nor detention powers even in Virginia. In more other words, he does NOTHING of what a police officer does. In even more other words, he is not a rent-a-cop. If you want to specifically denote rent-a-cops to special and company police, so be it. I cannot refute that logic. Same as rent-a-teachers and all companies that use contractors.
In fact, by the same logic you used, the electricians and computer IT guys in Iraq could be considered rent-a-soldiers by your definition...
Problem is, regular security does not do what police do--in practice or by law. Same with IT and other contractors for the military. They provide different services. Even if they carry guns for protection---like class G security guards in Florida.
Yes, I know about class G and all the stuff you point to as "evidence" to your point of view. However, it is moot. You are too intellectual for this meaningless point behind the debate. I am not trying to be the rightest here---just trying to get rid of a degrading term applied to a working class of individuals who are not all bad.
>> ^NordlichReiter:
>> ^Lawdeedaw:
I hate the term rent-a-cop. It is like saying rent-a-teacher for subs, rent-a-doctor for RNPs, or rent-a-fags for bi-sexual men. There is no such thing as a rent-a-cop. There is a security guard... Some have complexes but that goes with being human.

Contracting Security Officer. Exactly what it is. Rent-A-Cop. There are several varieties of them; which vary from state to state. Generally there are two types of Security Officers; the unarmed kind and the armed kind. They come in many colors. There's the BDU or Fatigue color, the ugly sports coat gray slacks color, and the polo shirt tactical khaki pants color. Although in the wild many different version of these colors can be observed.
In the District of Columbia there are Special Police which are known as Smithsonian Museum Special Police in NY & DC. For a basis on how security officers work see the second link to the Virginia Department of Criminal Justice.
As an independent contractor you can go through the hoops yourself, but most people choose to join companies, which sort out all of the paperwork for each employee.
Make no mistake about it. These are privately owned corporate entities. I was going to say that they are bound to the law just as much as a Peace Officer but, of course, the trends of late could prove differently.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_enforcement_officer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_police#United_States
http://www.dcjs.virginia.gov/pss/howto/registrations/armedSecurit
yOfficer.cfm


I never said he had the legal right or obligation to do jack shit. All security officers have to abide by state law and federal laws.
If you had read my comment more carefully you would see just how much you are reading into my opinion which was created fully in your head.
In order to be a lawfully licensed security guard(officer) you have to have abide by the states laws, and take their required classes. IT, and Soldiers that do not hold licenses issued by a state, which requires it, are in violation of that state's law.
Half the time security guards don't know the first thing about Civil Rights, or the difference between Private Property and Public Property or where the lines between private and public blur (like the side walks in front of a building).
Now to the point, I maintain that is exactly what they are. Contracted personnel to do a job. Call it rent-a-fake-cop, or call it a contracted security officer. Means the same to me. Words are just words, until they are made into something which they are not.

In defense of the abhorrent. Keep dancing, Rand.

......

What spurious arguments.

Racial discrimination ended in Boston (and the north) in the 1800s? Not at all. Blacks were getting their heads busted in Boston in the 60s as well.

So, if this guy had his way, Woolworths would be free to not serve blacks at lunch counters; Rosa Parks should go to the back of the bus (run by a private company).

This is where libertarianism hits a brick wall.

Fine, let's just agree every cop is individually a fascist piece of shit, and to hate their individual guts.

Hating all cops isn't like hating all black people, it's like hating all rapists. They're all criminals, they all joined the same gang for the same reason.>> ^Shepppard:
You don't hate the entire white race because of people like Timothy Mcveigh, or Black people because of John Allen Muhammad, you hate the individual.

I'm sure this is all very simple to you. When the world is all black-and-white, good-vs-evil, it's very easy to resort to absolutism.

The whole 'states rights' BS that the hardcore right-wing spouts is silly and paranoid. The whole 'it's only constitutionally prescribed function' is even sillier. Only a fucking fool demands that people (and governments) stick to rules laid out hundreds of years ago. Might as well demand that the Feds stop building highways and maintaining bridges, if we're gonna stick to the script and all.

If brown folks bother you, just say it. This law makes anyone some podunk, hillbilly police officer thinks looks Mexican into a suspect. You can try to fashion it and hide behind as many things as you want - but every dark-skinned person in Arizona is now a suspect.

For someone who spouts as much Freedom and Big Gubmint bullshit as you do to miss the whole 1984 aspect of this goes to show just how valuable your principles really are to you.>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

This is all very simple. Arizona has been asking the Federal government to do its job, and the feds failed miserably. The illegal population is causing serious problems financially and (more recently) to safety. It is to the government's shame that it is not interested in fulfilling it's only constitutionally prescribed function. So Arizona passed a law to do the job that the federal government was too chicken, lazy, or dastardly bother performing... Enforce the law & protect its LEGAL CITIZENS.
This isn't prejudice, or racism. It is simple, common-sense, effective law enforcement. MSNBC had a hilarious news crawl... "Arizona makes it against the law to be an illegal immigrant..." Against the law...to be ILLEGAL. People with this kind of mental disconnect are the ones opposing law enforcement. Any person in the country illegally should immediately be returned to their country of origin. No excuses. You want in the USA? That's fine. Follow the law. 70% of Arizona approves this. Who are you guys to sniff your nose at it? They live there. You do not. You know jack about what the issues here are - and that includes race baiters & demagogues like Maddow.

Yes it should because that's what it is. You essentially defined sensationalist media for me, contrived manufactured bullshit from nefarious TV producers. Thanks.

This is going to sound "crazy" but you can't even be sure how many of those "real people" were actually real people and not actors. My chief complaint is that the entire thing is bullshit with no credibility and again, does more harm than good.

My chief complaint is the money they used to make this contrived piece of shit, could of been used more effectively on a real piece of investigative journalism, though it likely would of had to run for an hour or more, with a very small rating projection and would of had a very gray result because racism is a very complex issue. So they wouldn't of been able to tag it with "RACISM IS RAGING! SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!"

My chief complaint is that yes, the whole subject SHOULD very much be dismissed if it's going to be "reported" on in this manner.
>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^yellowc:
Meh. Typical sensationalist piece, does more harm than good. It's assumed that no one is helping because the victim is black, where it's likely that they wouldn't of helped regardless of whom the victim was. Is the victim unable to stand up for herself? Or should we assume that all black people need assistance in every confrontation they face? You could make a fuss about that being racist if you wanted.
Yes, it's sensationalist. Yes, it's edited to produce a particular effect. However, your chief complaint seems to be that the ultimate upshot is that you should feel bad if you don't speak up when you see people being treated unfairly.
Lots of people don't think about this stuff, and this kind of sensationalist angle is intended to get people to think a bit about it (and get good ratings too).
It's not journalism, nor a real scientific study, but it doesn't mean the whole subject should be dismissed as being some evil contrivance manufactured by nefarious TV producers.

>> ^yellowc:

Meh. Typical sensationalist piece, does more harm than good. It's assumed that no one is helping because the victim is black, where it's likely that they wouldn't of helped regardless of whom the victim was. Is the victim unable to stand up for herself? Or should we assume that all black people need assistance in every confrontation they face? You could make a fuss about that being racist if you wanted.

Yes, it's sensationalist. Yes, it's edited to produce a particular effect. However, your chief complaint seems to be that the ultimate upshot is that you should feel bad if you don't speak up when you see people being treated unfairly.

Lots of people don't think about this stuff, and this kind of sensationalist angle is intended to get people to think a bit about it (and get good ratings too).

It's not journalism, nor a real scientific study, but it doesn't mean the whole subject should be dismissed as being some evil contrivance manufactured by nefarious TV producers.

>> ^yellowc:

Meh. Typical sensationalist piece, does more harm than good. It's assumed that no one is helping because the victim is black, where it's likely that they wouldn't of helped regardless of whom the victim was. Is the victim unable to stand up for herself? Or should we assume that all black people need assistance in every confrontation they face? You could make a fuss about that being racist if you wanted.
It's also not a coincidence they picked the most hostile environment for rejection on customer appearance. I couldn't give you a count of how many times I've been followed or made feel uncomfortable for walking in to a store dressed less than they desire.
Also keep in mind all the footage they're NOT showing you. This piece is edited to force a specific reaction.

The whole point is how people react to that worst, dehumanizing situation. All the "coincidence" are, point in fact, the entire purpose of this experiment. Similar to the people of Germany living next to a death camp, and smelling the smells of human flesh and doing nothing. This test is to see how far humans can shift blame and forfeit responsibility. I think if you see it in that light the experiment becomes less trivial.

Meh. Typical sensationalist piece, does more harm than good. It's assumed that no one is helping because the victim is black, where it's likely that they wouldn't of helped regardless of whom the victim was. Is the victim unable to stand up for herself? Or should we assume that all black people need assistance in every confrontation they face? You could make a fuss about that being racist if you wanted.

It's also not a coincidence they picked the most hostile environment for rejection on customer appearance. I couldn't give you a count of how many times I've been followed or made feel uncomfortable for walking in to a store dressed less than they desire.

Also keep in mind all the footage they're NOT showing you. This piece is edited to force a specific reaction.