User Tag List

First 152324252627 Last

Results 241 to 250 of 264

  1. #241

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kyuuei View Post
    No. I don't support the war overall.
    Then do you have ANY rationale for supporting McCain over Obama?

    Must have missed it. I'm not making coherent arguments? I haven't even heard an argument from those that prefer McCain, but don't like people assuming they're republicans.

  2. #242
    Senior Member reason's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    1,211

    Default

    meanlittlechimp,

    Nobody here is going to defend the Jim Crow laws--they were wrong--but it does not follow that whatever replaced them was right. In 1917, the same year that the Jim Crows laws began to be repealed, the October Revolution was beggining in Moscow. The Czarist regime that had reigned until then was wrong, but it does not follow that the Communist regime which replaced it was right.

    The Civil Rights Act of 64 replaced one wrong with another, albeit less objectionable. Further, the relative prosperity of blacks had been steadily increasing before the 60s, began to slow toward the 70s, and then decreased afterward. A great deal of credit is given to the Civil Rights Act of 64, and while it was undoubtedly an important and symbolic event, its actual consequences may be less worthy of praise.
    A criticism that can be brought against everything ought not to be brought against anything.

  3. #243
    Order Now! pure_mercury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    6,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by meanlittlechimp View Post
    It in affect was the same. The Jim Crow laws were in full effect UNTIL the civil acts right of 1964. You're saying the Jim Crow laws evaporated on their own accord? Sure some found it unconstitutional but nothing was really done about it until..... you guessed it, the civil rights act of 1964.


    Jim Crow laws mandated de jure segregation in all public facilities, with a "separate but equal" status for black Americans and members of other non-white racial groups. The civil rights act outlawed racial segregation in schools, public places, and employment.

    I guess you didn't notice one cancels the other out, but ok, they have nothing to do with each other.

    From wikipedia on the civil rights act of '64:
    "It prohibited discrimination in public facilities, in government, and in employment, invalidating the Jim Crow laws in the southern U.S. It became illegal to compel segregation of the races in schools, housing, or hiring. Powers given to enforce the bill were initially weak, but were supplemented during later years."
    No, it not "in affect" (sic) the same. Jesus, you even quote wikipedia at length and include the link, but leave out the information that supports everything I wrote. How conveniently disingenuous.

    "In the 20th century, the Supreme Court began to overturn Jim Crow laws on constitutional grounds. In Buchanan v. Warley 245 US 60 (1917), the court held that a Kentucky law could not require residential segregation. The Supreme Court in 1946, in Irene Morgan v. Virginia ruled segregation in interstate transportation to be unconstitutional, in an application of the commerce clause of the Constitution. It was not until 1954 in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka 347 US 483 that the court held that separate facilities were inherently unequal in the area of public schools, effectively overturning Plessy v. Ferguson, and outlawing Jim Crow in other areas of society as well. This landmark case consisted of complaints filed in the states of Delaware (Gebhart v. Belton); South Carolina (Briggs v. Elliott); Virginia (Davis v. County School Board of Prince Edward County); and Washington, D.C. (Spottswode Bolling v. C. Melvin Sharpe). These decisions, along with other cases such as McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Board of Regents 339 US 637 (1950), NAACP v. Alabama 357 US 449 (1958), and Boynton v. Virginia 364 US 454 (1960), slowly dismantled the state-sponsored segregation imposed by Jim Crow laws."


    "Free association" as you put it, is just another way to say - we have the right to NOT serve niggers if we don't want too.
    People have the right not to serve anyone that they don't want to serve, yes. They absolutely have that right.

    Any other bright insights today?
    Who wants to try a bottle of merc's "Extroversion Olive Oil?"

  4. #244

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by reason View Post
    The Civil Rights Act of 64 replaced one wrong with another, albeit less objectionable.
    I was objecting to the claim the two were not related and that one didn't repeal the other. I never claimed the Civil right act of 64 fixed everything, but it was a hell of a lot better than what came before it (at least for black people).

    As for the fall in black prosperity, the same argument can be made for the white middle class. We currently have the largest inequality of income distribution (for blacks AND whites) since the fall of the stock market in '29, which lead to the great depression.

    Quote Originally Posted by kyuuei View Post
    I won't even get into such a broad generalization as "Democrats are in cities because they're smart!!". You ever been to a city? They're all retarded and janky. And terrible drivers to boot. A degree doesn't make you smart, I'll bet my ass on that. I know plenty of "educated" people that have as much common sense as a bowl of peanuts.
    Sure some educated people are stupid and some bible thumpers are smart. But we're talking averages here. And there are simply more skilled jobs in cities which attracts those with said skills. I really don't think this is debatable.

    I never said "democrats are in cities because they're smart" - I simply pointed out a correlation between higher education and political allegiance (and a correlation between economists and political allegiance). If you want to refute that go ahead. But are you really that surprised about it?

  5. #245
    Senior Member reason's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    1,211

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by meanlittlechimp View Post
    I was objecting to the claim the two were not related and that one didn't repeal the other.
    I do not think that pure_murcury made any such claim. He said that the Jim Crow laws were being dismantled before 1964, and that the Civil Rights Act of 64 did more than just repeal the remaining Jim Crow laws. And he was correct, because it also violated the principle of free association in new ways.

    I never claimed the Civil right act of 64 fixed everything, but it was a hell of a lot better than what came before it (at least for black people).
    That depends on what the alternative is assumed to be. The Jim Crow laws had been challenged, and were being slowly repealed, almost 50 years before the Civil Rights Act of 64. If the trends underway before the 60s continued, including the gradual dismantling of the Jim Crow laws, then black people may have been more prosperous today. Unfortunately, society doesn't allow us to perform controlled experiments.

    As for the numbers on black prosperity. The same argument can be made for the white middle class. We currently have the largest inequality of income distribution (for blacks AND whites) since the Great Depression.
    Some people claim that the precedent set by the Civil Rights Act of 64, and the subsequent developments it encouraged, actually undermined the position of the majority of blacks in America.
    A criticism that can be brought against everything ought not to be brought against anything.

  6. #246

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by reason View Post
    meanlittlechimp,

    Nobody here is going to defend the Jim Crow laws
    Umm.. can you explain the below to me then?

    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    People have the right not to serve anyone that they don't want to serve, yes. They absolutely have that right.

    Any other bright insights today?
    So you think it's fine for racists to not serve black people. Nothing else to say to that, except you're ignorant.

    Quote Originally Posted by reason View Post
    Some people claim that the precedent set by the Civil Rights Act of 64, and the subsequent developments it encouraged, actually undermined the position of the majority of blacks in America.
    What % of black people do you think agree with this? It's absurd to think Blacks would have been better off without this legislation. Can you explain this to me?

    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    Ad hominem and baseless assertion. You're acting like everything you claim everyone else to be. Really, stop making a fool out of yourself.
    That line was responding to someone showing off their devastating wit, calling me a douchebag and you're accusing me of ad hominem attacks? You're too funny.

    Secondly, I received more than a few PMs, how they stopped posting in this forum because of the right wing babbling by the most frequent posters here. Baseless? I guess it depends on your point of view.

  7. #247
    Senior Member Lucifer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Posts
    246

    Default

    Freedom is a tricky thing.

    How much freedom should people have ?

    In a perfect world, total freedom, but people don't always make good choices, and some peoples freedoms can overlap other peoples freedoms.

    So what about racism ? Just because a percent of the population find it immoral doesn't mean they can tell another percentage their wrong, it just exacerbates the situation. As long as it does not inhibit the life, liberty or security of a person I do not legally think it is binding, in my opinion. But that doesn't mean I agree with it, it just means I aknowledge their right to.
    This world is mine - in time.

  8. #248
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    MBTI
    type
    Posts
    9,100

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lucifer View Post
    Politics is complicated.
    Fixed for maximum concision.

  9. #249
    Senior Member reason's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    1,211

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by meanlittlechimp View Post
    So you think it's fine for racists to not serve black people. Nothing else to say to that, except you're an ignorant piece of shit.
    If I were ignorant, then I would be ignoring you, but unfortunately for me I am not.

    The Jim Crow laws are not equivalent to the principle of free association, and therefore, defending the latter does not defend the former.

    In any case, a racist should not be forced to serve anyone he does not want to, and an employer should also be free to fire anyone who does not serve a paying customer. While I do not approve of racism, and am glad that the Jim Crow laws have been repealed, I respect the freedom of others to hold such views.
    A criticism that can be brought against everything ought not to be brought against anything.

  10. #250

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by reason View Post
    In any case, a racist should not be forced to serve anyone he does not want to, and an employer should also be free to fire anyone who does not serve a paying customer. While I do not approve of racism, and am glad that the Jim Crow laws have been repealed, I respect the freedom of others to hold such views.
    If you noticed I was addressing mercury.

    If you think a racist should not be forced to serve anyone and considering most of the south in 1964 was racist. Is it simply ok for blacks to be denied services? Whether you call it free association or Jim Crow, the denial of services to blacks is denied either way.

    How can you say that and then claim you are glad Jim Crow laws were repealed? Don't you think there's a contradiction?
    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    No, it not "in affect" (sic) the same. Jesus, you even quote wikipedia at length and include the link, but leave out the information that supports everything I wrote. How conveniently disingenuous.
    Obviously the court cases mentioned didn't have too much effect in the south since Jim Crow Laws were still ACTIVE. There was STILL massive segregation up until 1964, so obviously it wasn't dismantled.

    But guess what, after 1964 - there was serious MANDATORY desegregation.

    What don't you get about this!?!?
    Jim Crow = segregation (and your so called "free association").
    Civil Rights Act of 1964 = desegregation.

Similar Threads

  1. [ENTP] entps: what's the worst thing to you of the things you hate ?
    By entropie in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 10-05-2014, 10:01 PM
  2. [MBTItm] Animals & MBTI (A thread brought to you via 'an attempt to satiate boredom')
    By FantailedWall in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 55
    Last Post: 07-01-2011, 06:47 AM
  3. [ENTP] entps: what's the worst thing to you of the things you dread ?
    By entropie in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 06-24-2009, 12:47 AM
  4. These sensations brought to you by Alcohol
    By UnitOfPopulation in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 37
    Last Post: 04-11-2009, 08:37 PM
  5. Replies: 11
    Last Post: 10-26-2007, 07:23 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO