The Lasting Impact of the Black Civil Rights Movement

[bad_teammate 13224]

Some statements to start a discussion. I find these statements non-controversial.

- The enslavement of blacks by whites in America was bad.

- The increase of civil rights for blacks in America has been good.

- Racial animosity between whites and blacks existed before the black civil rights movement began.

- Whites and blacks are more likely to be friends, equal(ish) co-workers, romantic partners, and neighbors today than they were before the black civil rights movement began.

- It is good when the relations between races improve.

- Systemic racism was not cured by the progress of black civil rights.

- The rights of black people should not be contingent on the good graces of white people.

@DixonHur - Let's talk.

--------------------------------------------------------------

The school walkout thread derailed into a discussion of the lasting impact of black civil rights, so I'm separating that conversation out so it no longer distracts from the purpose of the thread.

Some of the relevant links to outside sources:
(WaPo) - Report: No progress for African Americans on homeownership, unemployment, and incarceration in 50 years
(Cornell-Roper): Public Opinion on Civil Rights: Reflections on the Civil Rights Act of 1964
(History.com): When America Despised the Irish: The 19th Century’s Refugee Crisis
(Westfield State University): White Fragility
(Brookings): Black Progress: How far we’ve come, and how far we have to go

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861]

47 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Some statements to start a discussion. I find these statements non-controversial.

- The enslavement of blacks by whites in America was bad.

- The increase of civil rights for blacks in America has been good.

- Racial animosity between whites and blacks existed before the black civil rights movement began.

- Whites and blacks are more likely to be friends, equal(ish) co-workers, romantic partners, and neighbors today than they were before the black civil rights movement began.

- It is good when the relations between races improve.

- Systemic racism was not cured by the progress of black civil rights.

- The rights of black people should not be contingent on the good graces of white people.

@DixonHur - Let's talk.

--------------------------------------------------------------

The school walkout thread derailed into a discussion of the lasting impact of black civil rights, so I'm separating that conversation out so it no longer distracts from the purpose of the thread.

Some of the relevant links to outside sources:
(WaPo) - Report: No progress for African Americans on homeownership, unemployment, and incarceration in 50 years
(Cornell-Roper): Public Opinion on Civil Rights: Reflections on the Civil Rights Act of 1964
(History.com): When America Despised the Irish: The 19th Century’s Refugee Crisis
(Westfield State University): White Fragility
(Brookings): Black Progress: How far we’ve come, and how far we have to go

The unemployment report seems misleading.   Much better jobs now for blacks than back then which is a result of the civil rights movement.  

[bernorange 8363]

I like how BT felt the need to specify the Black Civil Rights Movement as if that clarifies which civil rights movement he is talking about.

[bad_teammate 13224]

34 minutes ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

The unemployment report seems misleading.   Much better jobs now for blacks than back then which is a result of the civil rights movement.  

I absolutely agree. I was just making sure I included all the linked sources from the other threads in order to be as fair as possible to @DixonHur as I could.

11 minutes ago, bernorange said:

I like how BT felt the need to specify the Black Civil Rights Movement as if that clarifies which civil rights movement he is talking about.

You're welcome. Other civil rights movements have existed in America and exist today. Women's rights, LGBT rights, immigrant rights, veteran's rights, etc...

[DixonHur 11373]

Just for clarification, I think the title of the thread is misleading.  I've never argued that the Black Civil Rights Movement didn't effect change.  It absolutely did and is a large part of why I feel the Civil Rights Act was unnecessary, and likely counter productive.

The entirety of my argument can be summed up in the idea that the combination of societal, judicial, and economic pressure is a more effective means of effecting civil change, then legislation.

For me, this applies to all areas, not just race relations.

[Mole 4333]

Hopefully this thread will be less of an intolerable game of gotcha than the derailment thread was.

I've only scanned through the links quickly, but as far as the claim of "much better jobs now for blacks," the unemployment report mentioned limited wage growth and a pretty large wage disparity, so "much better jobs" might not be the case.

Scanning through the White Fragility article, something seems off. There's a lot of assumptions that seem more dogma than anything.

A central point of the argument in the other thread was that there has been less racial progress (a tough word to define and measure) since the Civil Rights Act than in the decades before. Even if you grant that this is true (which might not be the case), there are many potential causes:

-Economic factors

-Less room/more sticky points to improve in the more recent decades; we went from people owning people to where we are today, so any changes today might seem less dramatic

-The Civil Rights Act

-Negative social changes since the Civil Rights Act; these could be related or unrelated to the Civil Rights Act.

-Something else

Edited April 4, 2018 by Mole

[Brisketexan 105335]

15 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

Just for clarification, I think the title of the thread is misleading.  I've never argued that the Black Civil Rights Movement didn't effect change.  It absolutely did and is a large part of why I feel the Civil Rights Act was unnecessary, and likely counter productive.

The entirety of my argument can be summed up in the idea that the combination of societal, judicial, and economic pressure is a more effective means of effecting civil change, then legislation.

For me, this applies to all areas, not just race relations.

Do evolving social and economic trends produce a better end-product of "civil change" than legislation?  Probably.

Of course, none of that matters when your ass is in the barrel right now.

Think of it this way: the best way to manage a fire in a wooded area, even a neighborhood, is to let nature take its course.  Burn what needs to be burned, and eventually, rain will put the fire out.

That's all well and good....unless the fire is raging towards YOUR HOUSE.  Then, you want a fire crew to take care of business.

An appropriate blend of the two -- natural fire management, and fire fighting where necessary to protect lives and property -- is the right path.  That's what the Civil Rights Movement (natural change brought about by social and economic pressure) and the Civil Rights Act (legal intervention where necessary to protect basic rights) did.  Together.

Shit, your argument against the Civil Rights Act (that it forced change, and/or forced it beyond its natural timeline) is the same damned argument folks used against the Civil Rights Movement.  Have you read Letter from Birmingham Jail?  Lemme share a bit with you:

Quote

We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed. Frankly, I have yet to engage in a direct action campaign that was "well timed" in the view of those who have not suffered unduly from the disease of segregation. For years now I have heard the word "Wait!" It rings in the ear of every Negro with piercing familiarity. This "Wait" has almost always meant "Never." We must come to see, with one of our distinguished jurists, that "justice too long delayed is justice denied."

......

I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." 

Imagine that I am a black man in the 1960s.  I cannot freely and safely travel through the region of my birth, the South.  In some places, I cannot even vote.  I can be discriminated against in hiring decisions, so that I never even have a chance for good employment, even if I am educated and qualified.

You tell ME "wait for social change."  

My answer to you is probably much less measured and kind than Dr. King's.  It involves a hale and hearty "FUCK YOU."  The time for MY freedom, and MY rights, is now.

A country that has to be dragged kicking and screaming to that conclusion, by force of legislative act....well, that country should STFU about what's "good for me" and what's not.  200+ years of telling the black man what his place is didn't work out so well for the black man.  You'll forgive him when he doesn't defer to your sage decrees now.

[Catdaddyhorn 3447]

1 hour ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

The unemployment report seems misleading.   Much better jobs now for blacks than back then which is a result of the civil rights movement.  

How do all the black people locked up count in that unemployment rate,  or do they count at all?  

[bad_teammate 13224]

@Mole

I think your second bullet point is the most important one. In terms of progress towards equality, the move from 0% equal to 80% equal is much simpler and far more straightforward than the move from 81% equal to 100% equal. Just like a car requires far more power to get from 101 - 200 mph than it did to get from 0 - 100 mph. The marginal gains in black equality over the last 50 years are far harder to quantify than going from slave to non-slave or going from no-voting-rights to equal-voting-rights.

I think we agree on that.

@DixonHur

The CRA of 1964 prohibited employment discrimination along the following lines:
- race/color
- gender
- nationality
- religion

The CRA also ended public segregation, desegregated schools, and solidified the right to vote.

Your argument in the other thread was that it would have been better for blacks if they had waited until whites decided on their own to finally stop oppressing blacks, yes? I am not trying to be unfair, but I genuinely do not know how to re-state your argument in a way that makes it seem any less absurd.

I guess the same is true of women, non-Christians, and non-white immigrants?

Quote

The entirety of my argument can be summed up in the idea that the combination of societal, judicial, and economic pressure is a more effective means of effecting civil change, then legislation.

How does social pressure manifest itself in a representative democracy if not legislation? That's what representative democracy is, no?

At the time of the implementation of the Civil Rights Act in 1964, it had majority appeal.

In the decades after, almost no one thinks the CRA of 1964 was NOT good for the country (1% of whites and 0% of blacks). (So you understand my skepticism regarding the actual existence of your multiple millionaire black friends who think the CRA was bad for blacks.)

I am not seeing where the problem is. I am not seeing any evidence of demonstrable harm from the CRA of 1964 and I certainly see no evidence that the CRA is unpopular.

[DelusionalTahoeHorn 3]

Guys... I am all for equal rights for the blacks. As long I still have the republican party to gerrymander and push legislation that secretly keeps them down and away from me and my family. 

[wildcat09 29387]

I gotta say, this might be the first time I've seen the argument put forth from a perspective opposed to certain civil rights reforms that judicial decisions are a preferable method of effecting change. I'm used to seeing the "activist judges should wait for the legislative process!" argument. 

[Johnny Sack 8397]

1 hour ago, DelusionalTahoeHorn said:

Guys... I am all for equal rights for the blacks. As long I still have the republican party to gerrymander and push legislation that secretly keeps them down and away from me and my family. 

The Democrats have been stellar at "helping" blacks

[bad_teammate 13224]

Voting for the CRA of 1964, under a Democratic president...

The original House version:

• Southern Democrats: 7–87   (7–93%)
• Southern Republicans: 0–10   (0–100%)
• Northern Democrats: 145–9   (94–6%)
• Northern Republicans: 138–24   (85–15%)

The Senate version:

• Southern Democrats: 1–20   (5–95%) (only Ralph Yarborough of Texas voted in favor)
• Southern Republicans: 0–1   (0–100%) (John Tower of Texas)
• Northern Democrats: 45–1   (98–2%) (only Robert Byrd of West Virginia voted against)
• Northern Republicans: 27–5   (84–16%)

[Brothahorn 10087]

I just caught the last page of the derailment, but it seems as if you guys are confusing Civil Rights with Affirmative Action. Yes, I know AA is covered in the CRA. But, AA is discussed singularly the majority of the time, IMO.

The CRA was needed if nothing else, just to end the discrimination from government entities.

I'm just thankful that I'm not intelligent enough to not see the progress that my elders, their descendants and peers have made since passage. Of course, things are not perfect(and never will be), but only a fool looks back on the last 54 years and sees a stalemate.

 

[JBJ 3665]

The criticism I see most often of the CRA is ending housing discrimination.  It ushered in the flight of black wealth to the suburbs, which has left historically black areas worse off.

To me that is still better than a push.  Black people who found the opportunity and means to move out of poor urban areas did so.  The black people left behind may be worse off, but it is still better to have that opportunity, imo.

[DixonHur 11373]

5 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

Do evolving social and economic trends produce a better end-product of "civil change" than legislation?  Probably.

Of course, none of that matters when your ass is in the barrel right now.

Think of it this way: the best way to manage a fire in a wooded area, even a neighborhood, is to let nature take its course.  Burn what needs to be burned, and eventually, rain will put the fire out.

That's all well and good....unless the fire is raging towards YOUR HOUSE.  Then, you want a fire crew to take care of business.

An appropriate blend of the two -- natural fire management, and fire fighting where necessary to protect lives and property -- is the right path.  That's what the Civil Rights Movement (natural change brought about by social and economic pressure) and the Civil Rights Act (legal intervention where necessary to protect basic rights) did.  Together.

Shit, your argument against the Civil Rights Act (that it forced change, and/or forced it beyond its natural timeline) is the same damned argument folks used against the Civil Rights Movement.  Have you read Letter from Birmingham Jail?  Lemme share a bit with you:

Imagine that I am a black man in the 1960s.  I cannot freely and safely travel through the region of my birth, the South.  In some places, I cannot even vote.  I can be discriminated against in hiring decisions, so that I never even have a chance for good employment, even if I am educated and qualified.

You tell ME "wait for social change."  

My answer to you is probably much less measured and kind than Dr. King's.  It involves a hale and hearty "FUCK YOU."  The time for MY freedom, and MY rights, is now.

A country that has to be dragged kicking and screaming to that conclusion, by force of legislative act....well, that country should STFU about what's "good for me" and what's not.  200+ years of telling the black man what his place is didn't work out so well for the black man.  You'll forgive him when he doesn't defer to your sage decrees now.

Totally understand, but I'm pretty far on the Libertarian side of things.  For example, in your forest fire example, or really any natural disaster, I'll have empathy for the homeowner, but not sympathy.  I live on the Greenbelt, and if that thing goes up in a blaze of glory, I'm fucked, but I knew the risks when I bought the house...and I have insurance.  I don't think it's anyone else's responsibility to help me recover.  Would I accept help from those who choose to do so?  Absolutely, and I'd be one of the first to help a neighbor recover.

I think Brothahorn summed up the issue best.  I think where things went off the rails was conflating the CRA with affirmative action.  The CRA is pretty innocuous in and of itself...it basically says, adhere to the constitution and treat everyone equally.  I don't think it was particularly needed given that society and the courts were moving toward that end already...the Hippie movement, Brown v. Education, Loving v. Virginia, etc....

As far as the Letter from Birmingham Jail, I agree.  BT is the only one talking about waiting for the white man to help.  I specifically, and purposely, used the term "changes in society" to outline one of the 3 pillars of effecting change.  In my view, "society" includes all races, creeds, genders.  For me this conversation isn't about race. 

To me the same logic applies to all social change, whether it be in regards to race, gender identity, gun control, or the legalization of drugs.  I think societal changes, economics, and the judicial branch upholding the constitution are far better options then legislation. 

I think the congress should stick to it's Section 8 duties...and stop trying to legislate morality.  I realize this is one man's opinion, but that's how I feel.

 

[bad_teammate 13224]

18 hours ago, DixonHur said:

I think the congress should stick to it's Section 8 duties...and stop trying to legislate morality. 

Mr. Libertarian, how do you feel about age of consent laws?

It may seem off topic, but I find libertarians to be extremely fuzzy once their "don't legislate morality!" stance extends beyond the completely coincidental reality of them as a legion of white men with racially problematic views. It's almost like they understand that government needs to protect the powerless, but some mysterious and completely and unknowable prejudice makes them resistant to the idea of government protecting blacks.

Edited April 5, 2018 by bad_teammate

[Brisketexan 105335]

18 hours ago, DixonHur said:

Totally understand, but I'm pretty far on the Libertarian side of things.  For example, in your forest fire example, or really any natural disaster, I'll have empathy for the homeowner, but not sympathy.  I live on the Greenbelt, and if that thing goes up in a blaze of glory, I'm fucked, but I knew the risks when I bought the house...and I have insurance.  I don't think it's anyone else's responsibility to help me recover.  Would I accept help from those who choose to do so?  Absolutely, and I'd be one of the first to help a neighbor recover.

I think Brothahorn summed up the issue best.  I think where things went off the rails was conflating the CRA with affirmative action.  The CRA is pretty innocuous in and of itself...it basically says, adhere to the constitution and treat everyone equally.  I don't think it was particularly needed given that society and the courts were moving toward that end already...the Hippie movement, Brown v. Education, Loving v. Virginia, etc....

As far as the Letter from Birmingham Jail, I agree.  BT is the only one talking about waiting for the white man to help.  I specifically, and purposely, used the term "changes in society" to outline one of the 3 pillars of effecting change.  In my view, "society" includes all races, creeds, genders.  For me this conversation isn't about race. 

To me the same logic applies to all social change, whether it be in regards to race, gender identity, gun control, or the legalization of drugs.  I think societal changes, economics, and the judicial branch upholding the constitution are far better options then legislation. 

I think the congress should stick to it's Section 8 duties...and stop trying to legislate morality.  I realize this is one man's opinion, but that's how I feel.

 

Well, I'm really thrilled for you that for you, this conversation isn't about race.

For the black folks who had dogs sicced on them, were beaten senseless. assaulted while trying to eat lunch, were denied basic employment, were denied access to the ballot box, etc. etc. (the list goes on -- for fucking pages), it kinda sorta WAS about their race -- and the fact that their race condemned them to a third-class existence.

They didn't "choose to build their house next to a greenbelt" in this metaphor -- they were born black.  And they were relentlessly punished for it.

"It isn't about race" and "we should be colorblind" are easy things to say sitting in the white folks' section.  Your father and grandfather didn't face discrimination when they traveled for a simple baseball game.  Mine did (mexican, not black).  Yours weren't denied meals at the only open restaurant in town.  Yours weren't denied the right to vote because of their race. 

Your position is a minority position -- I mean, like a 1% minority position (seriously, BT posted some real data on this, and I dug into the sources even further).  Because it's short-sighted and patently cruel.  "Don't fret, downtrodden bastard -- odds are that your great, great, great grandchildren will do alright."  For fuck's sake, man.

[Catdaddyhorn 3447]

Fast forward to the 1900s New Deal reform, Housing loans, & the GI Bill. Same song different verse, but to some this had no effect. It's all due to smaller brains, genetics, or whatever new bullshit they can point to. 

[Fozzz 152]

I think this country would be in a lot better place had Thaddeus Stevens gotten his way.  

[bad_teammate 13224]

I'm stealing this line, but libertarians are anarchists who want a state only large enough to protect them from their slaves.

 

[Dr Fear 1268]

2 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

I'm stealing this line, but libertarians are anarchists who want a state only large enough to protect them from their slaves.

 

This is completely absurd.  Why do you make a list of things you think the government does very well and get back to me? 

[bad_teammate 13224]

4 minutes ago, Dr Fear said:

This is completely absurd.  Why do you make a list of things you think the government does very well and get back to me? 

- Building and maintaining infrastructure
- National and international defense
- National, state, and local parks
- Universal access to sanitation and water
- Electronic and communication infrastructure
- Ensuring free and fair elections
- Maintenance of peaceful social order

The reality is that America, on the whole, runs very well. Obviously there are major problems, but there are many things the government does extremely well that the private sector would have zero incentive to involve itself in (care of mentally ill/poor veterans, ensuring utilities to rural citizens, feeding starving children).

And anyway, how the hell is that a response to what I said? Did you even understand it?

Edited April 5, 2018 by bad_teammate

[wildcat09 29387]

2 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

- Building and maintaining infrastructure
- National and international defense
- National, state, and local parks
- Universal access to sanitation and water
- Electronic and communication infrastructure
- Ensuring free and fair elections
- Maintenance of peaceful social order

The reality is that America, on the whole, runs very well. Obviously there are major problems, but there are many things the government does extremely well that the private sector would have zero incentive to involve itself in (care of mentally ill/poor veterans, ensuring utilities to rural citizens, feeding starving children).

And anyway, how the hell is that a response to what I said? Did you even understand it?

The infrastructure points alone could be analyzed at greater length for literally thousands of pages. From air traffic and safety to building the Hoover Dam, the federal government has built and maintained infrastructure that has made literally hundreds of trillions of dollars (if not more) in economic activity possible. That's not even getting into any of the other points you enumerated, nor the dozens if not hundreds that you didn't.

When people say there's nothing the government does well, what they're really saying is that they've got absolutely no idea what the government does.

[Dr Fear 1268]

7 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

- Building and maintaining infrastructure
- National and international defense
- National, state, and local parks
- Universal access to sanitation and water
- Electronic and communication infrastructure
- Ensuring free and fair elections
- Maintenance of peaceful social order

The reality is that America, on the whole, runs very well. Obviously there are major problems, but there are many things the government does extremely well that the private sector would have zero incentive to involve itself in (care of mentally ill/poor veterans, ensuring utilities to rural citizens, feeding starving children).

And anyway, how the hell is that a response to what I said? Did you even understand it?

Fair point about the response, but you hit a nerve.  Slavery is the absolute antithesis of Libertarianism. It is the socialists that all want us to be slaves.  I also should have put the caveat as to things that are impossible for the private sector to perform which you listed a bunch. Even so:

- Building and maintaining infrastructure - This is debatable 
- National and international defense - First class soldiers and equipment, massive amounts of mismanagement and wasted $$$
- National, state, and local parks - Agree here, although I would prefer the states actually run the parks over the Feds
- Universal access to sanitation and water - Agree
- Electronic and communication infrastructure - Is almost all of the infrastructure not private? From a regulation  aspect they do OK here
- Ensuring free and fair elections - Hugo would not agree, lol, but I would
- Maintenance of peaceful social order - This would depend where you live

As far as the topic of the post, I think a better question is whether the Civil Rights act has outlived its usefulness and is even counterproductive today.

 

 

 

 

[bad_teammate 13224]

22 minutes ago, Dr Fear said:

Slavery is the absolute antithesis of Libertarianism.

That's a strong statement, and one that is difficult to swallow given the reality of historical slavery and political ideology of the slave-holding class. It might be held that non-contracted slavery is the absolute antithesis of Libertarianism, but what about contracted?

- Should I be able to sell myself into slavery? For instance, let's say I am deeply in debt and I offer my unpaid work to a rich man in exchange for him allowing my wife and children to avoid eviction from our home. Our contract is that he will note foreclose on our home and I will do his bidding without payment of any kind for the rest of my life. Should the government not allow the enforcement of that contract? If not, why not?

- Should a person under 18 be able to sell his or her body for sex? If not, why not?

Quote

It is the socialists that all want us to be slaves.

Explain.

Quote

As far as the topic of the post, I think a better question is whether the Civil Rights act has outlived its usefulness and is even counterproductive today.

I would be interested to hear any argument as to a real and demonstrable problem with the CRA today. The most I can gather is that it makes some white people mad.

Quote

- Building and maintaining infrastructure - This is debatable 

It's really not. Essentially every important piece of infrastructure in this nation was built either entirely or partly with public funds. You would literally be unable to live your modern life in any recognizable way without government-funded infrastructure projects.

It is actually kind of funny anyone would try to argue otherwise. It shows how deep into our own asses we get online that we would even entertain the notion that government-funded infrastructure is anything but a massive positive.

Quote

- National and international defense - First class soldiers and equipment, massive amounts of mismanagement and wasted $$$

Inefficiency is a characteristic of any organization of sufficient size, public or private. The only people who think the private sector is more efficient, more effectively managed, and wastes less money are people who have never worked in the private sector or are willfully blind.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

On 4/4/2018 at 8:37 AM, bad_teammate said:

Some statements to start a discussion. I find these statements non-controversial.

- The enslavement of blacks by whites in America was bad.

- The increase of civil rights for blacks in America has been good.

- Racial animosity between whites and blacks existed before the black civil rights movement began.

- Whites and blacks are more likely to be friends, equal(ish) co-workers, romantic partners, and neighbors today than they were before the black civil rights movement began.

- It is good when the relations between races improve.

- Systemic racism was not cured by the progress of black civil rights.

- The rights of black people should not be contingent on the good graces of white people.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------

In other news.... water is wet....

 

[DixonHur 11373]

5 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

Mr. Libertarian, how do you feel about age of consent laws?

It may seem off topic, but I find libertarians to be extremely fuzzy once their "don't legislate morality!" stance extends beyond the completely coincidental reality of them as a legion of white men with racially problematic views. It's almost like they understand that government needs to protect the powerless, but some mysterious and completely and unknowable prejudice makes them resistant to the idea of government protecting blacks.

You're using the modern connotation of Libertarian that is really just another term for Far-Right Christian Conservative...I'm an atheist, so I don't really fall into that category...they kinda hijacked the term.  I'm also not an anarchist...I believe in laws, just not a ton of them.  Anyway, to your question.  As far as I know, age of consent is not mentioned in the Constitution, therefore it should (and is) a decision to be made at the state level.

5 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

Well, I'm really thrilled for you that for you, this conversation isn't about race.

For the black folks who had dogs sicced on them, were beaten senseless. assaulted while trying to eat lunch, were denied basic employment, were denied access to the ballot box, etc. etc. (the list goes on -- for fucking pages), it kinda sorta WAS about their race -- and the fact that their race condemned them to a third-class existence.

They didn't "choose to build their house next to a greenbelt" in this metaphor -- they were born black.  And they were relentlessly punished for it.

"It isn't about race" and "we should be colorblind" are easy things to say sitting in the white folks' section.  Your father and grandfather didn't face discrimination when they traveled for a simple baseball game.  Mine did (mexican, not black).  Yours weren't denied meals at the only open restaurant in town.  Yours weren't denied the right to vote because of their race. 

Your position is a minority position -- I mean, like a 1% minority position (seriously, BT posted some real data on this, and I dug into the sources even further).  Because it's short-sighted and patently cruel.  "Don't fret, downtrodden bastard -- odds are that your great, great, great grandchildren will do alright."  For fuck's sake, man.

What a bunch of sanctimonious horse crap.  First off, the fire metaphor was yours.  Don't get mad at me because it didn't work prove whatever point you were trying to make.

And no, for me it's not about race, the discussion devolved into a discussion about the CRA (which also is not specific to race), because I hurt BT's feelings by disagreeing with him about giving special gun ownership rights to active duty military and vets should an age restriction be put in place.  I made the point that military folks can't buy beer or rent a car either if they are under age either.

As for all the evil shit black people went through / are going through, how much of that is constitutional?  As far as I can tell, all the CRA did was say...hey, you know all that unconstitutional shit you're doing?  Well cut it out. 

My opinion is simply that we'd have likely come further as a nation had these issues continued to be litigated...as was already happening.  You disagree.  Fine.  We'll never know.

I mean feel free to make me out to be some sort of white supremacist if it makes you feel better, but...

• My best friend since 6th grade is black
• I voted for Obama twice
• I lived in the Bahamas for 5 years where I worked for black bosses and dated black women
• My 2 current business partners are black
• My current girlfriend's last boyfriend was black, meaning I regularly put my mouth were a huge black cock used to go...oh, and BT she's an accountant from Illinois, not a supermodel from Canada, sorry to disappoint

So, if I'm a white supremacist, I'm the worst fucking white supremacist ever! 

There are plenty of actual racists out there, but simply disagreeing with the need for the CRA does not a racist make.  Just as opposing Trump's travel ban doesn't mean I'm pro-terrorist.

It just means I don't think Congress needs to pass laws to tell us to abide by the constitution.  It's really not that difficult of a concept, but because in this particular case it deals with black people, everyone gets their "white guilt" hackles up.

Frankly I don't have a dog in this fight, my grandmother, on my mom's side, was Jewish and came over with her family from Germany (technically Prussia) during WWI...my dad came over from Italy after WWII.  And if grandma had her way I wouldn't be here because she was adamantly against my mom marrying my dad because he was a dirty Italian...and Catholic no less...ya see that was before Italians were white...but not long after Jews became white.

Edited April 5, 2018 by DixonHur

[Brisketexan 105335]

4 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

As for all the evil shit black people went through / are going through, how much of that is constitutional?  As far as I can tell, all the CRA did was say...hey, you know all that unconstitutional shit you're doing?  Well cut it out. 

 

4 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

It just means I don't think Congress needs to pass laws to tell us to abide by the constitution.  It's really not that difficult of a concept, but because in this particular case it deals with black people, everyone gets their "white guilt" hackles up.

Ok, here's the part where we point out how you're showing your ass.

The Constitution only restricted GOVERNMENT action.  Not private entities.  It took the CRA to do that part.  So, the whole bit about not being able to find a place to eat, or sleep, or a doctor who would treat you or your kids, etc. etc.?  Yeah....it took the CRA to fix that.

Jesus H. Fucking Christ on a popsicle stick.  How dense can you fucking be?  

7 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

My opinion is simply that we'd have likely come further as a nation had these issues continued to be litigated...as was already happening.  You disagree.  Fine.  We'll never know.

...and tough shit for the literally millions of bastards who would have died waiting for your progress.  If you think that human beings will accept an answer of "sorry you're being ass-raped by society, but hey, it looks like maybe your great grandkids won't be, so hooray!", then you're a sociopath.

[Hank Scorpio 17731]

On 4/4/2018 at 3:30 PM, DixonHur said:

Totally understand, but I'm pretty far on the Libertarian side of things.  For example, in your forest fire example, or really any natural disaster, I'll have empathy for the homeowner, but not sympathy.  I live on the Greenbelt, and if that thing goes up in a blaze of glory, I'm fucked, but I knew the risks when I bought the house...and I have insurance.  I don't think it's anyone else's responsibility to help me recover.  Would I accept help from those who choose to do so?  Absolutely, and I'd be one of the first to help a neighbor recover.

I think Brothahorn summed up the issue best.  I think where things went off the rails was conflating the CRA with affirmative action.  The CRA is pretty innocuous in and of itself...it basically says, adhere to the constitution and treat everyone equally.  I don't think it was particularly needed given that society and the courts were moving toward that end already...the Hippie movement, Brown v. Education, Loving v. Virginia, etc....

As far as the Letter from Birmingham Jail, I agree.  BT is the only one talking about waiting for the white man to help.  I specifically, and purposely, used the term "changes in society" to outline one of the 3 pillars of effecting change.  In my view, "society" includes all races, creeds, genders.  For me this conversation isn't about race. 

To me the same logic applies to all social change, whether it be in regards to race, gender identity, gun control, or the legalization of drugs.  I think societal changes, economics, and the judicial branch upholding the constitution are far better options then legislation. 

I think the congress should stick to it's Section 8 duties...and stop trying to legislate morality.  I realize this is one man's opinion, but that's how I feel.

 

Fuck I love Libertarians. 

 

 

[DixonHur 11373]

33 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

 

Ok, here's the part where we point out how you're showing your ass.

The Constitution only restricted GOVERNMENT action.  Not private entities.  It took the CRA to do that part.  So, the whole bit about not being able to find a place to eat, or sleep, or a doctor who would treat you or your kids, etc. etc.?  Yeah....it took the CRA to fix that.

Jesus H. Fucking Christ on a popsicle stick.  How dense can you fucking be?  

...and tough shit for the literally millions of bastards who would have died waiting for your progress.  If you think that human beings will accept an answer of "sorry you're being ass-raped by society, but hey, it looks like maybe your great grandkids won't be, so hooray!", then you're a sociopath.

Dude, get over yourself.  The 14th Amendment covers equal protection.  Just because people willfully disregarded it, doesn't mean it didn't exist.  Hell, it's still being used today to get bakers to cater gay weddings.

As for being a sociopath?  Perhaps I am, but so fucking what.  Some people will always be on the wrong side of society....that's life.  The last 200 years is but a blip on the timeline of humanity.  Sorry I don't get all weepy for every sad world event. 

I was lucky to be born white in America during the 20th century.  I recognize that I'm privileged, but I don't feel guilty about it.

I've read most of your posts and we agree on many more topics than we disagree on, I'm sorry I'm not in lock step with your opinions here.

Edited April 5, 2018 by DixonHur

[DixonHur 11373]

20 minutes ago, Hank Scorpio said:

Fuck I love Libertarians.

Which ones?  Left leaning?  Right leaning? Or centrists?

You're basically taking the extreme and assuming it's the center.  That's like going to a PETA event and assuming that's how all Liberals are.

But speaking of Gary Johnson, that guy should be booed anywhere...he's an idiot.  I wrote in William Weld...that's they type of Libertarian I am.

Edited April 5, 2018 by DixonHur

[Brisketexan 105335]

1 minute ago, DixonHur said:

Dude, get over yourself.  The 14th Amendment covers equal protection.  Just because people willfully disregarded it, doesn't mean it didn't exist.  Hell, it's still being used today to get bakers to cater gay weddings.

The 14th amendment is about equal protection....provided by THE GOVERNMENT.  Not private entities.  Even to the extent that it's even been raised in the bakery cases (and it hasn't been a significant focus of briefing), it's been about the power of THE STATE to implement certain requirements/restrictions.

So, AGAIN, the Constitution did not and does not mandate that PRIVATE enterprises -- like every restaurant, hotel, and gas station in the south -- treat people equally.

I don't give a flying fuck if you get weepy.  I just hear millions of black people saying "Fuck YOU -- I'm not waiting to stop being treated like shit," and they're a shitload more persuasive than you are.  Because in their shoes, I'd be saying the same damned thing.

[bad_teammate 13224]

49 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

You're using the modern connotation of Libertarian that is really just another term for Far-Right Christian Conservative...

Nope, not at all.

I understand very well the difference between conservatives and libertarians, namely that conservatives at least vaguely attempt to align themselves with so-called Christian values. As you mention, Libertarians are atheistic in their worldview and, as such, have no real mooring with which to deal with moral questions as, in addition to their atheism, they tend to be traditionalist regressives. It's really the worst of all worlds.

I wouldn't ask a conservative Christian how they feel about age of consent laws, because I know that their opinions would be based, at least in part, on their moral worldview. Libertarians actively attempt to push away morality as a concept, which is exactly what you attempt to do constantly when facing questions of racial discrimination and, this latest question, age of consent.

I did not ask you how you felt about age of consent laws being national, I asked how you felt about age of consent laws. How do you feel about the idea of a state deciding to eliminate an age of consent law and allow sex and/or marriage between a 50-year-old man and a 10-year-old girl? Should it be allowed?

How do you feel about the idea of a 16-year-old black boy in the ghetto deciding to sell himself into slavery to a suburban white family in a signed contract? Should it be allowed?

If a worldview cannot deal with answering simple questions, of what use is it?

Quote

And no, for me it's not about race, the discussion devolved into a discussion about the CRA (which also is not specific to race), because I hurt BT's feelings by disagreeing with him about giving special gun ownership rights to active duty military and vets should an age restriction be put in place.

Attempting to figure out your extremely bizarre worldview is not a matter of hurt feelings.

I'm not the one who sent angry PMs, little buddy, that was you. Hurt feelings, indeed.

Quote

My opinion is simply that we'd have likely come further as a nation had these issues continued to be litigated...as was already happening.

What case was working its way through the court system that would have eliminated slavery in the American South?

How would the American South have reacted to a federal court in the North striking down slavery in all states?

Libertarians have an extremely ill-considered and ignorant view of both the modern world and of history. It is an inch deep and bears zero probing.

Edited April 5, 2018 by bad_teammate

[wildcat09 29387]

11 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

If a worldview cannot deal with answering simple questions, of what use is it?

I think the overwhelming majority of people forget to ask themselves the bolded part regarding their own beliefs, but the worst are certainly those who are the most ideological. The entire point of having a specific ideology/belief/view/whathaveyou of how people should generally act or how society should work is that we think that it is the best means to some greater good. They then immediately forget about that greater good forever once they've determined that their ideology or view is the best.

The sabbath was made for man, as they say, not the other way around. The moment a person's political ideology has them supporting segregation, if they're not actually racist they should probably fucking ask themselves what good is their ideology if it has them supporting segregation, rather than get upset that people think they're racist.

[DixonHur 11373]

26 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Nope, not at all.

I understand very well the difference between conservatives and libertarians, namely that conservatives at least vaguely attempt to align themselves with so-called Christian values. As you mention, Libertarians are atheistic in their worldview and, as such, have no real mooring with which to deal with moral questions as, in addition to their atheism, they tend to be traditionalist regressives. It's really the worst of all worlds.

I wouldn't ask a conservative Christian how they feel about age of consent laws, because I know that their opinions would be based, at least in part, on their moral worldview. Libertarians actively attempt to push away morality as a concept, which is exactly what you attempt to do constantly when facing questions of racial discrimination and, this latest question, age of consent.

I did not ask you how you felt about age of consent laws being national, I asked how you felt about age of consent laws. How do you feel about the idea of a state deciding to eliminate an age of consent law and allow sex and/or marriage between a 50-year-old man and a 10-year-old girl? Should it be allowed?

How do you feel about the idea of a 16-year-old black boy in the ghetto deciding to sell himself into slavery to a suburban white family in a signed contract? Should it be allowed?

If a worldview cannot deal with answering simple questions, of what use is it?

Project much?  You asked, and are still asking, about age of consent LAWS not about my feelings toward what the age of consent should be.  I'm not a pedophile, nor do I have kids, so I don't spend much time thinking about how old someone should be before having sex. 

That said, I was 15 the first time, so I guess I'll go with 15. 

As for your other question, I'm really not sure why every discussion with you morphs into a debate about race...did you bully black kids when you were younger and now feel bad about it?  Why does your hypothetical 16 year old boy have to be black and living in the ghetto?  Are you saying that you'd be ok with a Native American from the Reservation selling himself into slavery?  It's a stupid question.  Personally, I'm anti-slavery....but slavery is also un-fucking constitutional, so I'm not sure what you're getting at.

 

Quote

Attempting to figure out your extremely bizarre worldview is not a matter of hurt feelings.

I'm not the one who sent angry PMs, little buddy, that was you. Hurt feelings, indeed.

Really?  Here's the post in the other thread when I suggested we take the discussion off line since we were the only 2 discussing it...

Quote

I'll happily answer all your questions via private message.  This has turned into a binary debate, in which I'm not going to change your opinion, just as you won't change mine, so I don't see the [need] to continue [to] bumping the thread every 5 minutes in perpetuity.

Edited with brackets for grammar errors...

And here are those "angry" PM's....

Quote

First off, who the hell is Ben Shapiro?

Anyway, I don't see the contradiction in what you posted from the Brookings article and what I said about the CRA?  Are you suggesting that more white people become friends with blacks because to the CRA?  If so, I don't even know how that would work.

As I've mentioned ad nauseum, I believe (based on historical and modern precedence) that changes in society and the resulting economic pressure is the best way to effect change.  Why are there more Organic farmers today then there were 10 years ago?  Why is almost every CPG company advertising how natural their products are?  Because society tells them (in cash) that those things are important to them.

Quote

The state of Vermont's constitution in 1777 abolished slavery in that state. How is that possible if abolitionists only came after the abolition of slavery in the North (which actually didn't fully happen until after the Civil War)?

I said with the abolition of slavery came abolitionists.  That means...as abolition happened the abolitionist movement grew stronger.  Not that they all just popped out one day.

Quote

This is a load of supposition about what theoretically would have happened.

Of course it is, all hypotheses are based on supposition, because they are about things that haven't happened.  You can't prove a negative.

Quote

What movement towards freeing the slaves was already underway in the American South before the Civil War started?

So I'm supposed to answer all your questions but you don't answer mine?  How convenient for you.

Ever heard of the Underground Railroad? 

•  

•  
• Quote
• Edit

• Report reply

bad_teammate 30

Replied: yesterday at 07:37 AM

here's a thread. go in there.

•  

If that's what you consider to be an "angry" PM, then you have thinner skin than I thought.

Quote

What case was working its way through the court system that would have eliminated slavery in the American South?

How would the American South have reacted to a federal court in the North striking down slavery in all states?

I don't know, perhaps they would have seceded and started a Civil War.  Oh, wait, they already did that...

My personal opinion, is that the Feds should have combined what Great Britain did with their Caribbean territories...and what Gen. Sherman suggested.  Great Britain paid the plantation owners for their slaves and we all know about Gen. Sherman's famous 40 acres promise.  I think that would have been vastly superior to what did happen or has happened since.

Quote

Libertarians have an extremely ill-considered and ignorant view of both the modern world and of history.

Well, at least you're not generalizing.

[bad_teammate 13224]

25 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

Project much?  You asked, and are still asking, about age of consent LAWS not about my feelings toward what the age of consent should be.  I'm not a pedophile, nor do I have kids, so I don't spend much time thinking about how old someone should be before having sex. 

That said, I was 15 the first time, so I guess I'll go with 15. 

What the fuck kind of logic is this?

I swear to Christ, Libertarians are literally the most useless branch of the political thought tree in all of fucking existence. 

"Uhh, facts don't care about your feelings!" - "Uhhh, use some LOGIC for once."

*simple policy question appears*

"Oh, I don't know, I don't think about anything that doesn't directly affect me, so I guess I'll stake my position on my own personal experience!"

Quote

As for your other question, I'm really not sure why every discussion with you morphs into a debate about race...did you bully black kids when you were younger and now feel bad about it?  Why does your hypothetical 16 year old boy have to be black and living in the ghetto?  Are you saying that you'd be ok with a Native American from the Reservation selling himself into slavery?  It's a stupid question.  Personally, I'm anti-slavery....but slavery is also un-fucking constitutional, so I'm not sure what you're getting at.

When someone can't answer a question, this is what they say. Christ you're all tied in knots by your own stupid worldview. You get simple yes/no questions and you spin like a fucking top.

Simple questions:

How do you feel about the idea of a state deciding to eliminate an age of consent law and allow sex and/or marriage between a 50-year-old man and a 10-year-old girl? Should it be allowed?

How do you feel about the idea of a 16-year-old black boy in the ghetto deciding to sell himself into slavery to a suburban white family in a signed contract? Should it be allowed?

Quote

I don't know, perhaps they would have seceded and started a Civil War.  Oh, wait, they already did that...

Then why are you so confident that it all would have worked itself out? Do you literally believe in magic?

Quote

My personal opinion, is that the Feds should have combined what Great Britain did with their Caribbean territories...and what Gen. Sherman suggested.  Great Britain paid the plantation owners for their slaves and we all know about Gen. Sherman's famous 40 acres promise.  I think that would have been vastly superior to what did happen or has happened since.

Oh, what Great Britain did... which was pass anti-slavery legislation and then pay the slave owners?

And if slavery is UN-FUCKING-CONSTITUTIONAL, why did we need to amend the Constitution to abolish slavery? Why did the courts, which you have said is the proper venue for these questions, uphold the Constitutionality of slavery over and over again (Dred Scott, etc...)?

Libertarianism is a refuge for unremarkable people with little social awareness and mediocre intellect.

Edited April 5, 2018 by bad_teammate

[JBJ 3665]

Libertarianism is not amoral.  They just draw a sharp line between what consitutes a crime and what is bad behavior without being criminal.  Most of the crimes that can be committed under the CRA don't meet the libertarian definition.  There's no direct force or fraud.  That being said I could make a argument from a libertarian standpoint that there is deprivation and (at least used to be) superior-force.

You'll have to ask a libertarian about their opinion of age of consent laws.  I could see an argument both ways while remaining ideologically "pure."

Somewhat ironic, labor-contracts were a key driver of historical liberalism.  Working a business for 10-years for lower wages but an eventual ownership deal would still be a great choice for many today.  However, I don't see selling yourself as property (which I assume was your intent) being agreeable to a libertarian.  Like he said above, that's kind of the ultimate anti-libertarian stance.

Edited April 5, 2018 by JBJ

[Mole 4333]

Is someone going to have to start an age of consent thread in order to keep this thread on track?

[DixonHur 11373]

1 hour ago, bad_teammate said:

What the fuck kind of logic is this?

I swear to Christ, Libertarians are literally the most useless branch of the political thought tree in all of fucking existence. 

"Uhh, facts don't care about your feelings!" - "Uhhh, use some LOGIC for once."

*simple policy question appears*

"Oh, I don't know, I don't think about anything that doesn't directly affect me, so I guess I'll stake my position on my own personal experience!"

So answer your own question.  What you do you think the age of consent should be and why?  Do you know how many different age of consent laws we have in the US alone?  Which is the right one?  Why?

Quote

How do you feel about the idea of a 16-year-old black boy in the ghetto deciding to sell himself into slavery to a suburban white family in a signed contract? Should it be allowed?

Honestly, what is your obsession with race.  Holy fuck.

You're asking me if I think something that is unconstitutional should be legal?  No, of course not.   And it's still a stupid question.

Quote

Then why are you so confident that it all would have worked itself out? Do you literally believe in magic?

Because it did in every culture in history.  But perhaps you're right, maybe the US was gonna be the one exception over the last 6,000 years.

Quote

Oh, what Great Britain did... which was pass anti-slavery legislation and then pay the slave owners?

Not sure what your point is here.  The paying of the slave owners was part of the act, not some subsequent add on.  So do you have an issue with the paying of the slave owners or the freeing of the slaves?

Quote

And if slavery is UN-FUCKING-CONSTITUTIONAL, why did we need to amend the Constitution to abolish slavery? Why did the courts, which you have said is the proper venue for these questions, uphold the Constitutionality of slavery over and over again (Dred Scott, etc...)?

Did we just go through a worm hole or something?  I'm pretty sure you've answered your own question.  We needed an amendment to the constitution because under the original constitution slavery was legal...the Dred Scott out front should have told ya. 

Another fun fact, did you know women can vote now too?  Yep, totally unconstitutional not to let women vote...which is weird because under the original they couldn't.  You see, Johnny, that's why the framers included rules to amend the constitution.

 

Quote

Libertarianism is a refuge for unremarkable people with little social awareness and mediocre intellect.

Triggered much?

[DixonHur 11373]

1 hour ago, JBJ said:

Libertarianism is not amoral.  They just draw a sharp line between what consitutes a crime and what is bad behavior without being criminal.  Most of the crimes that can be committed under the CRA don't meet the libertarian definition.  There's no direct force or fraud.  That being said I could make a argument from a libertarian standpoint that there is deprivation and (at least used to be) superior-force.

You'll have to ask a libertarian about their opinion of age of consent laws.  I could see an argument both ways while remaining ideologically "pure."

Somewhat ironic, labor-contracts were a key driver of historical liberalism.  Working a business for 10-years for lower wages but an eventual ownership deal would still be a great choice for many today.  However, I don't see selling yourself as property (which I assume was your intent) being agreeable to a libertarian.  Like he said above, that's kind of the ultimate anti-libertarian stance.

What JBJ said...he basically summed up my entire position in 3 short paragraphs. 

[bad_teammate 13224]

Quote

So answer your own question.  What you do you think the age of consent should be and why?  Do you know how many different age of consent laws we have in the US alone?  Which is the right one?  Why?

18+: free-for-all
16-18: 4 year age gap
<16: no sex with 18+

Roughly like Canada's.

You see, this is how intellectually honest people work: They answer questions when asked. I'm open to discussion, of course.

Can you answer? Why do you run in chicken-without-a-head circles when asked basic questions?

I'm going to ask these two questions again, but I'll modify them slightly to make them less vexatious for you:

How do you feel about the idea of a state deciding to eliminate an age of consent law and allow sex and/or marriage between a 50-year-old man and a 10-year-old girl? In a larger sense, absent the existence of the current U.S. Constitution, should it be allowed?

How do you feel about the idea of a 16-year-old black boy in the ghetto deciding to sell himself into slavery to a suburban white family in a signed contract? In a larger sense, absent the existence of the current U.S. Constitution, should it be allowed?

Quote

Did we just go through a worm hole or something?  I'm pretty sure you've answered your own question.  We needed an amendment to the constitution because under the original constitution slavery was legal...the Dred Scott out front should have told ya. 

Another fun fact, did you know women can vote now too?  Yep, totally unconstitutional not to let women vote...which is weird because under the original they couldn't.  You see, Johnny, that's why the framers included rules to amend the constitution

Do you know how the 13th Amendment came about? Congress. Through the legislative process.

I remember when a guy called "DixonHur" said:
The entirety of my argument can be summed up in the idea that the combination of societal, judicial, and economic pressure is a more effective means of effecting civil change, then legislation.

You might have heard of him.
 

[DixonHur 11373]

44 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

18+: free-for-all
16-18: 4 year age gap
<16: no sex with 18+

Roughly like Canada's.

You see, this is how intellectually honest people work: They answer questions when asked. I'm open to discussion, of course.

Can you answer? Why do you run in chicken-without-a-head circles when asked basic questions?

I'm going to ask these two questions again, but I'll modify them slightly to make them less vexatious for you:

How do you feel about the idea of a state deciding to eliminate an age of consent law and allow sex and/or marriage between a 50-year-old man and a 10-year-old girl? In a larger sense, absent the existence of the current U.S. Constitution, should it be allowed?

How do you feel about the idea of a 16-year-old black boy in the ghetto deciding to sell himself into slavery to a suburban white family in a signed contract? In a larger sense, absent the existence of the current U.S. Constitution, should it be allowed?

You're amazing you should work for Trump.  Crow about answering questions while not answering the questions.  So me answering 15 because that's when I had sex was arbitrary and not answering the question, but you saying "I'd do it like Canada" is somehow answering questions (plural) below and not at all arbitrary? Also, I find it disturbing that under your rules, a 17 year old could fuck a toddler.  That's sick bro.

Quote

So answer your own question.  What you do you think the age of consent should be and why?  Do you know how many different age of consent laws we have in the US alone?  Which is the right one?  Why?

Anyway, why is Canada's system the right one?  What analysis have you done to determine they've hit the sweet spot? Or is it just a gut feeling?  Be specific...you know since you're so intellectually honest.

Quote

Do you know how the 13th Amendment came about? Congress. Through the legislative process.

Yes, a legislative process ingrained in the constitution. If you have a point, make it.

Did you also know there was an 1866 Civil Rights Act passed by congress?   Yep, but it got vetoed by a different President Johnson...kind of ironic...anywhoo, that's how we got the 14th Amendment.

Quote

I remember when a guy called "DixonHur" said:
The entirety of my argument can be summed up in the idea that the combination of societal, judicial, and economic pressure is a more effective means of effecting civil change, then legislation.

You might have heard of him.

Sounds like a fine fellow, do you happen to have the quote where he talks about abolishing Congress?  No?  How about the one where he says congress shouldn't be allowed to pass legislation?  What's that?  No, that doesn't exist either?  Hmm..

Do you know what the phrase "more effective" means?  What I did say is the I think congress should stick to Section 8 of Article 1 when making laws.  And low and behold, there's a duty outlined in there that could have been used against the slave states...

" To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes "

Here's a crazy idea...how about ban the interstate commerce and exportation of slave made goods.  Think that would have gotten their attention?

You'd think someone who likes to throw stones at the mediocre intellect of libertarians, would be able to like, read good and comprehend stuff.

Edited April 6, 2018 by DixonHur

[Serak The Preparer 3431]

9 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

 Also, I find it disturbing that under your rules, a 17 year old could fuck a toddler.  That's sick bro.

How the fuck do you draw that conclusion from "16-18: 4 year age gap"?

 

Granted BT didn't give his rules for 0-15, so you could at least create a plausible straw-man argument that a 15 year old could fuck a toddler, but at least create a straw man from within the rules!

[bad_teammate 13224]

14 minutes ago, Serak The Preparer said:

How the fuck do you draw that conclusion from "16-18: 4 year age gap"?

He doesn't genuinely believe that, he's just angry and trying to throw shit into the air.

25 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

You're amazing you should work for Trump.  Crow about answering questions while not answering the questions.  So me answering 15 because that's when I had sex was arbitrary and not answering the question, but you saying "I'd do it like Canada" is somehow answering questions (plural) below and not at all arbitrary? Also, I find it disturbing that under your rules, a 17 year old could fuck a toddler.  That's sick bro.

I apologize for leaving you with the impression that I think it should be legally allowed for a 17-year-old to fuck a toddler. I do not think an honest person would get that impression, but my lack of specificity allowed you an in for obfuscation and that is my fault.

18+: free-for-all
16-18: 4 year age gap
<16: no sex with 18+, 2-year age gap
<14: no sex with anyone at all for any reason

Nowhere did I state that Canada's laws were a sufficient cause to justify my view, I merely pointed to Canada as an existing set that looks similar to what I would find morally conscionable ("Roughly like Canada's.")

That is extremely different from your stated rationale ("That said, I was 15 the first time, so I guess I'll go with 15.") You're being characteristically dishonest.

My views on age of consent have entirely to do with power dynamics and how there are categories of people, either for biological or sociological reasons, that are power inequal to many others and cannot enter into consensual agreements or fair contracts. There are categories of people who, either for biological or sociological reasons, need the protection of the collective via popular act or legislation or other government intervention.

Quote

Yes, a legislative process ingrained in the constitution. If you have a point, make it.

Your disdain for the use of legislative processes seems to be inconsistent at best.

Quote

Do you know what the phrase "more effective" means?  What I did say is the I think congress should stick to Section 8 of Article 1 when making laws.  And low and behold, there's a duty outlined in there that could have been used against the slave states...

" To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes "

Here's a crazy idea...how about ban the interstate commerce and exportation of slave made goods.  Think that would have gotten their attention?

A Libertarian arguing for an extremely broad interpretation of Congress's power with regard to the Commerce Clause. That's amazing.

[DixonHur 11373]

No, basically you're hiding behind Canada and still not answering the questions...as you said, it's a simple question.  Why is "something like Canada" a better option than basing it on someone's own experience?  You're basically saying, "well they made a law, so they must have really thought about it hard, so let's use it."  That's no different from my original answer that it should be up to the states.

You can throw around terms like power dynamics, but what about them?  Who are the ones who need them...be specific...why can't a 16 year old date (have sex with) a 21 year old if he/she wants to?  What acts are covered by the age of consent?  Is it just penile penetration into a vagina?  Anal?  Blowjob?  Finger banging?  French kissing?  Any physical contact?  What about between same sex couples?  Where's the line?

Priscilla was 14 when she started dating the 24 year old Elvis.  But I'm sure they just held hands for the first 4 years of the relationship. 

What if the legal age in your state is lower than a neighboring state.  Should we arrest folks when they cross the state line?

1 hour ago, bad_teammate said:

Your disdain for the use of legislative processes seems to be inconsistent at best.

Disdain? Hahaha, please show me where I've displayed "disdain' for congress (as an institution, not the actual members)?  If I have disdain for the legislative process, then I guess the framers did too, because all my opinions are that they should work on the things outlined in their charter...aka the constitution. 

1 hour ago, bad_teammate said:

A Libertarian arguing for an extremely broad interpretation of Congress's power with regard to the Commerce Clause. That's amazing.

It fucking says the words "regulate Commerce" among the several states...this isn't a broad interpretation...it's literally one of the specifically outlined constitutionally purposes of congress.   Ever see the movie "Smokey and the Bandit"?  You should watch it to learn about the ability of congress to regulate commerce...and that was over refrigeration!

Is your next rebuttal gonna be something like..."Sure the constitution says congress can levy taxes, but your a libertarian so you don't like taxes, therefore you obviously don't think congress should levy taxes, durrr"

You think you're some cleaver genius, but you're the one talking in circles. Either answer the questions or stfu.

[DixonHur 11373]

2 hours ago, Serak The Preparer said:

How the fuck do you draw that conclusion from "16-18: 4 year age gap"?

 

Granted BT didn't give his rules for 0-15, so you could at least create a plausible straw-man argument that a 15 year old could fuck a toddler, but at least create a straw man from within the rules!

Actually he did give the rules for 0-15...see that little "<" next to the 16?  That's a "less than symbol"...obviously I was being hyperbolic

But following the letter of his law, no one under 16 can have sex with anyone 18+, but if you're 17 all's fair game.

Edited April 6, 2018 by DixonHur

[bad_teammate 13224]

Quote

You're basically saying, "well they made a law, so they must have really thought about it hard, so let's use it."

Not at all. I said my position was roughly like Canada's. There was no causational language in my statement (as there was with yours ("so")).

I already stated my rationale. I will go ahead and re-state it below.

My views on age of consent have entirely to do with power dynamics and how there are categories of people, either for biological or sociological reasons, that are power inequal to many others and cannot enter into consensual agreements or fair contracts. There are categories of people who, either for biological or sociological reasons, need the protection of the collective via popular act or legislation or other government intervention.

Did you not see it or do you not understand it? I guess I can restate it in simpler terms if you need me to, just let me know.

Quote

It fucking says the words "regulate Commerce" among the several states...this isn't a broad interpretation...it's literally one of the specifically outlined constitutionally purposes of congress. 

I agree it says the words "regulate Commerce".

Here it is exactly:
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

Is regulating the means of production of a good regulating commerce among the several states? Or is the regulation of commerce among the several states actually about the trade of goods itself?

I know the argument can be made, because the Commerce Clause is used by very-much-not-Libertarians to grant extremely broad power to the federal government. I honestly am surprised, because Roberts' smacking down of the expansive use of the Commerce Clause in 2012 was widely celebrated by Libertarians. Your advocacy that Congress use the Commerce Clause to coerce private business into changing its labor practices is very bizarre and I have no idea why coercing them via economic manipulation is preferable to Congress just saying, "Nope, you're not allowed to do that anymore."

I guess the idea is that the slave owners could resist Congress's economic manipulation and continue to enslave blacks at a higher price to the slave owners...which is... a better situation?

Quote

obviously I was being hyperbolic

No, hyperbole is dramatic exaggeration. You were not exaggerating, you were creating something out of nothing. You were being dishonest, likely because you were embarrassed by me pointing out how stupid your argument was and wanted to get back at me by falsely accusing me of advocating the legalized rape of toddlers.

But I ain't mad at you. Being a libertarian must be fucking torture when the asshole normies keep talking about how blacks should be protected from discrimination and oppression.

Edited April 6, 2018 by bad_teammate

[HOOK'EMHOOAH 1610]

On 4/4/2018 at 9:31 AM, DixonHur said:

Just for clarification, I think the title of the thread is misleading.  I've never argued that the Black Civil Rights Movement didn't effect change.  It absolutely did and is a large part of why I feel the Civil Rights Act was unnecessary, and likely counter productive.

The entirety of my argument can be summed up in the idea that the combination of societal, judicial, and economic pressure is a more effective means of effecting civil change, then legislation.

For me, this applies to all areas, not just race relations.

What a wonderful world we would live in if people just stopped being bigots toward anything that is different and doesn't conform to their personally accepted norms. Unfortunately, it doesn't always work like that and legislation had to be introduced to ensure that further discrimination ended and a set of legal punitive actions were laid out for all to understand should they decide to not conform to the new laws regarding civil rights. It's a goddamn travesty that we ever had to have a civil rights movement of any kind because it means the white patriarchy was fucking things up. But of course, the white patriarchy was fucking things up because it existed - and still exists today.

 

People are people, so what can you do?

-depeche mode

[DixonHur 11373]

20 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

Not at all. I said my position was roughly like Canada's. There was no causational language in my statement (as there was with yours ("so")).

I already stated my rationale. I will go ahead and re-state it below.

My views on age of consent have entirely to do with power dynamics and how there are categories of people, either for biological or sociological reasons, that are power inequal to many others and cannot enter into consensual agreements or fair contracts. There are categories of people who, either for biological or sociological reasons, need the protection of the collective via popular act or legislation or other government intervention.

Did you not see it or do you not understand it? I guess I can restate it in simpler terms if you need me to, just let me know.

You certainly are good at using a lot of words to say nothing.  You still haven't answered any of the questions.  Not sure how many time you have to hear the phrase, "be specific", but there I said it again.

My views on life have entirely to do with carbon, water, and air. / BT

Spell out exactly what these "inequities" and "categories" are, how they are identified, and who gets to decide?  Can a man have sex with a drunk woman?   If not, what qualifies as drunk?  Do we use the BAC standard like with driving under the influence?  How do we regulate that?  Breathalyzer?  Blood test?

Your answer sounds like Chief Justice Potter's famous "I know it when I see it" quip.

20 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

Here it is exactly:
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

I love how you quote something I'd already included in one of my posts above, as if it was your own original thought.  You even bolded it which was a nice touch.

20 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

Is regulating the means of production of a good regulating commerce among the several states? Or is the regulation of commerce among the several states actually about the trade of goods itself?

Well, Bill, I guess it depends on what your definition of "is" is. 

Either way, how would that make a difference in practice?  Let's say it's Option A...no interstate commerce of products made by slaves...let's say it's Option B...no interstate trade of cotton...you know, because of the dangers of spreading boll weevils.

20 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

I know the argument can be made, because the Commerce Clause is used by very-much-not-Libertarians to grant extremely broad power to the federal government. I honestly am surprised, because Roberts' smacking down of the expansive use of the Commerce Clause in 2012 was widely celebrated by Libertarians. Your advocacy that Congress use the Commerce Clause to coerce private business into changing its labor practices is very bizarre and I have no idea why coercing them via economic manipulation is preferable to Congress just saying, "Nope, you're not allowed to do that anymore."

You have a very weird, and a bit disturbing proclivity toward identity politics.  You keep making this reference to me being a Libertarian.  I'm not.  I don't belong to any political party because they all suck.  I am a total independent, who happens to have many views the line up with Libertarian views...hence the phrase, " I'm pretty far on the Libertarian side of things."  I'm not shy.  If I were a member of the Libertarian party, I'd say so...I vote for who I think the best candidate is regardless of party....I grew up in a Reagan household, but my voting record is:

Clinton x 2

W x 1

Kerry x 1

Obama x 2

Weld x 1

I don't have a problem with you calling me a Libertarian if that suites your narrative.  It's true that I think the governments job is to make sure the basics are taken care of and then get the hell out of the way.  But some of those "basics" I believe in are the antithesis of Libertarian.  For example I'm for universal healthcare, universal basic income, and free education through college.

Laws are a bit like invasive species.  Ships bring mice, so they bring in cats to kill the mice, then the mice eat the birds that help pollinate the crops, so they bring in something to hunt the cats...and round and round we go.  Laws rarely solve the problem they were intended to solve because we wily humans find loopholes, so more laws are needed to correct the previous ones and before you know it there are literally too many to keep track of, including thousands on gun ownership alone. 

21 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

No, hyperbole is dramatic exaggeration. You were not exaggerating, you were creating something out of nothing. You were being dishonest, likely because you were embarrassed by me pointing out how stupid your argument was and wanted to get back at me by falsely accusing me of advocating the legalized rape of toddlers.

It actually is hyperbole, it's not my fault you don't know how to use a "less than sign". 

13 hours ago, HOOK'EMHOOAH said:

People are people, so what can you do?

-depeche mode

On a lighter note, I hope you don't consider yourself a DM fan...those aren't the words to that song.