Question Who's Online | Find Members | Private Messages
Questions
Quizzes
Articles
My Journal
Forums
Answer Questions | Question Comments | My Questions | Favorites | +Add Question
LATEST
POPULAR PRIORITY RANDOM

All | Games | Funny | Entertainment | Quizzes | Weird | Tech | People | Arts/Lit | News | Science | Sports | Places | Misc

49,705 hits Rate me! Share Favorite | Flag 3 mos ago by chips2001

Are mass shootings an acceptable by-product of the right to bear arms?


Put This Question on Your Page (MySpace, Livejournal, Blog, etc)
[Preview] EMBED CODE:


Prev 1 2 3 4 Next (showing 51-75 of 87)

Bottom Last Post

2 months ago - Tuesday 8/27/19 - 11:59:36 AM EST (GMT-5)
On Tuesday 8/27/19 - 2:32:07 AM Spoonerism wrote:
Yeah. That's definitely a direct result of the civil rights act. And. Even if it were. (It's not.) Does it you undermine the law's effects on people's lives? F*ck. Does every piece of legislation have to be perfect in order to be worth having?


I’m not saying it caused identity politics. I’m saying it is an early example of identity politics policy.
2 months ago - Tuesday 8/27/19 - 12:02:11 PM EST (GMT-5)
On Tuesday 8/27/19 - 11:58:09 AM amaqdrinker wrote:
That’s the problem. I believe in a separation of church and state.


So no. There are greater influences in my life than who’s taking money out of my paycheck every week.
2 months ago - Tuesday 8/27/19 - 12:07:36 PM EST (GMT-5)
Trump was elected through identity politics. That was the big point of the article I posted a while back.
2 months ago - Tuesday 8/27/19 - 12:12:20 PM EST (GMT-5)
On Tuesday 8/27/19 - 11:59:36 AM amaqdrinker wrote:
I’m not saying it caused identity politics. I’m saying it is an early example of identity politics policy.


Actually, an early example of identity politics is literally all politics. That's my point. You just don't think it is, because you're considering your own identity to be the "default" and others to be...well, "other."
2 months ago - Tuesday 8/27/19 - 12:19:30 PM EST (GMT-5)
I don’t think I agree with your point.

My only takeaway is that you might be anti-Semitic.
2 months ago - Tuesday 8/27/19 - 12:21:24 PM EST (GMT-5)
OK cool, you're just talking complete and utter nonsense now.

This is why it's pointless to ever engage with you. I don't even know why I bothered this time.
2 months ago - Tuesday 8/27/19 - 12:33:00 PM EST (GMT-5)
Believing that some people are going to stay on topic with a reasonable position and make coherent posts is a little like thinking Lucy isn't going to pull the football away.
2 months ago - Tuesday 8/27/19 - 1:06:05 PM EST (GMT-5)
On Monday 8/26/19 - 4:26:25 PM birdsong4j wrote:
So you're saying it didn't "serve the needs of the people" to make laws against discrimination based on race? Because otherwise, I'm not sure what your point was in bringing up that particular example.


my point is, legislation alone won't end racism. sure, black people don't have to go to different schools or sit at the back of the bus or drink out of separate water fountains anymore, and that's progress. but did that legislation change the hearts and minds of people as a whole to just give up racism overnight? that's debatable.

that's why i see where amaq is coming from, and i think people like him are frustrated with the political process. democrats are seen by some as wanting to keep black people on welfare. is that better than republicans defending the acts of racist cops? can we not say both are wrong?
2 months ago - Tuesday 8/27/19 - 1:10:38 PM EST (GMT-5)
But that isn't what you said. You agreed with him calling legislation like that "political strong-arming." You've yet to give an explanation for that; you're just moving the goal posts when pressed on your claims.
2 months ago - Tuesday 8/27/19 - 1:11:12 PM EST (GMT-5)
Are you arguing that a piece of legislation has to perfectly solve all facets of a problem in order for it to even be worth passing? Because that certainly seems like the argument you're trying to make.
2 months ago - Tuesday 8/27/19 - 1:13:29 PM EST (GMT-5)
On Tuesday 8/27/19 - 1:11:12 PM birdsong4j wrote:
Are you arguing that a piece of legislation has to perfectly solve all facets of a problem in order for it to even be worth passing? Because that certainly seems like the argument you're trying to make.


I thought he explained that it wasn't the argument he's trying to make...
2 months ago - Tuesday 8/27/19 - 1:29:39 PM EST (GMT-5)
On Tuesday 8/27/19 - 1:11:12 PM birdsong4j wrote:
Are you arguing that a piece of legislation has to perfectly solve all facets of a problem in order for it to even be worth passing? Because that certainly seems like the argument you're trying to make.


it helps that it solves as much of the problem as possible. we also have to remember that laws are pretty useless unless they're enforced. one can argue that if the community steps up where the law and the enforcement of such a law comes up short, it makes the law more effective.
2 months ago - Tuesday 8/27/19 - 1:34:09 PM EST (GMT-5)
When it comes to something as basic as civil rights, it actually helps when you enact laws that make it illegal to discriminate against people in public accommodations, which it did. It also helps when the law prohibits unequal treatment in things like voting rights, and educational segregation.

You seem to be misunderstanding how huge the Civil Rights Act actually was. Obviously it didn't solve absolutely everything - in a country where we had over 250 years of chattel slavery, followed by 100 more of oppressive race-based laws, no legislation was going to just end racism overnight.

And again: you referred to it as "political strong-arming" and have yet to actually defend that. So what did you actually mean by saying that?
2 months ago - Tuesday 8/27/19 - 1:54:14 PM EST (GMT-5)
...maybe it has something to do with the fact that anyone critical of the legislation (like pointing out that it isn't going to solve racism, or isn't enforcible) gets labeled negatively.
2 months ago - Tuesday 8/27/19 - 3:26:32 PM EST (GMT-5)
amaq called it political strong-arming, not me. i just said that i can see his perspective. not that i agree with it or endorse it. but i can see how people would feel that way and feel the frustration that comes with wanting to solve such a complex issue.

racism isn't going to be solved overnight. it's a complex issue with many actors and many moving parts. both parties are guilty of enacting policies that are racist. bill and hillary enacted laws that led to mass incarceration and that's how many minorities went to jail for something trivial like marijuana possession. donald trump wants to build a wall to keep mexicans out.

the big question is, what are we doing as members of society to make up for the shortfalls of imperfect legislation? that's why i gave the example of that person talking people into giving up white supremacy. our communities should acknowledge that and (cont.)
2 months ago - Tuesday 8/27/19 - 3:28:50 PM EST (GMT-5)
do our best to make society a better place.

i don't think the civil rights act was a bad idea. nor do i think it is unenforcable. but unless we change the hearts and minds of people through our actions, and politicians actually work for the people instead of the people writing the biggest checks, we're stuck where we are.
2 months ago - Tuesday 8/27/19 - 3:33:04 PM EST (GMT-5)
On Tuesday 8/27/19 - 3:26:32 PM Inquizitor2 wrote:
donald trump wants to build a wall to keep mexicans out.


The border wall thing started under the Clinton administration when they built the wall between Tijuana and San Diego...
2 months ago - Tuesday 8/27/19 - 3:34:05 PM EST (GMT-5)
On Tuesday 8/27/19 - 3:26:32 PM Inquizitor2 wrote:
amaq called it political strong-arming, not me. i just said that i can see his perspective.


But why can you "see that perspective" re: the Civil Rights Act? I don't think this is an unfair question, since you're the one who first brought it up as an example.
2 months ago - Tuesday 8/27/19 - 3:42:47 PM EST (GMT-5)
of course, it was necessary since racism is wrong and unacceptable. nobody should be made to feel like they are a second-class citizen.

the civil rights act was the example i gave because we're still trying to push back against racism. you'd think after 50+ years of saying "racism is wrong" with that legislation people would know better. but we still have a long way to go.
2 months ago - Tuesday 8/27/19 - 3:56:50 PM EST (GMT-5)
On Tuesday 8/27/19 - 3:42:47 PM Inquizitor2 wrote:
the civil rights act was the example i gave because we're still trying to push back against racism. you'd think after 50+ years of saying "racism is wrong" with that legislation people would know better. but we still have a long way to go.



But that doesn't explain why you used it as an example of "political strong-arming" (which has an obvious negative connotation to it).

So why did you do that?

And no, I would actually think it would take a lot more than a generation and a half to "fix" a problem that was literally codified into law for over 350 years. I don't know why anyone would think it would be so simple, or so quick.
2 months ago - Tuesday 8/27/19 - 4:36:10 PM EST (GMT-5)
i don't necessarily think it's political strong-arming, just that i could see how people would feel that way. it was one of the major pieces of legislation in american history, and some people felt like it infringed on states' rights, so some people may have perceived it that way.
2 months ago - Tuesday 8/27/19 - 4:41:23 PM EST (GMT-5)
This was your first follow-up:
On Monday 8/26/19 - 4:25:10 PM Inquizitor2 wrote:
not at all, i just said i can see where amaq is coming from. people get frustrated about trying to make changes in society when politicians don't actually serve the needs of the people. that's how i interpreted what he said.


So you're insinuating that the Civil Rights Act "doesn't actually serve the needs of the people."
2 months ago - Tuesday 8/27/19 - 4:56:20 PM EST (GMT-5)
maybe i should have been more clear about that. current politicians definitely don't serve the needs of the people. maybe when the civil rights act was passed, there was actually concern about how it would impact the lives of people, but today, that's questionable.
2 months ago - Tuesday 8/27/19 - 4:58:24 PM EST (GMT-5)
What facts are you using to back that up?
2 months ago - Tuesday 8/27/19 - 6:40:47 PM EST (GMT-5)
Maybe the fact that many legislators like to pass 'feel good' legislation that makes them look like they are addressing an issue, but really doesn't provide any significant benefit?

Prev 1 2 3 4 Next (showing 51-75 of 87)



You need to be logged in to post a reply

New to YT? Create a Free Account ~ Have an Account? Log In

Top



10 Most Popular Questions Today
1 If a defendant is found `not guilty`, do you assume that they are innocent?

2 Should transgender people use the bathroom of the gender on their birth certificates, or by what gender they most look like?

3 Have you ever gotten a small loan of a million dollars?

4 Have you ever been in a fist fight before?

5 Is Rock and Roll here to stay?

6 Would you rather have no elbows or no knees?

7 Do you think Donald Trump will become the president of the United States?

8 Is Squidward`s skin color blue or green?

9 Has anyone from youthink ever been on Jeopardy?

10 Are you a dedicated follower of fashion?

More Questions
Friends
Daily Moment of Joy
Personality Quizzes
Funny Videos
I-Am-Bored.com
Free IQ Test
The Impossible Quiz
Intelligence Test
Relationship Test
Doodie Cartoons
 
Edit