Roe vs. Roe

[WithStamin]

Abortion seems to be losing support. 4 in 10 now support overturning Roe vs. Wade, even "Roe" herself.

Click. (http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,89663,00.html)

[bossydacow]

old news.

[kidinthecorner]

haha..
-Doc Roe = Medic in "Band of Brothers"
-Wade = Medic in "Saving Private Ryan"

Who's better? We'll find out in: Roe vs. Wade !!

[BrandNewRock05]

Originally posted by bossydacow
old news.
so is slavery, but we still have to hear about how oppressed blacks are because of slavery

[Alex Djaferis]

its all about Kris Roe from the Ataris. hes the man.

[BustaNutz]

Originally posted by BrandNewRock05
so is slavery, but we still have to hear about how oppressed blacks are because of slavery

Shut the hell up and stop preaching your goddamned republican conservative doctrine. Becuase of us, blacks are oppressed, to this day they are.

I find that statement (no doubt made in jest) to be ignorant and snobbish. Had the slave trade never been put into practice these problems wouldn't exist, and while the number of black americans would be far less, racism and prejudices (which stem from slavery) would be much much less and black people would live in America because of a choice made by their ancestors, not a choice made by ours.

[devin]

First, I'm wary of polls to begin with. People with a little knowledge of psychology can tell you the phrasing of a question can be as important as the content.

Originally posted by BrandNewRock05
so is slavery, but we still have to hear about how oppressed blacks are because of slavery

No, it's not old news. The legacy of slavery still has a strong impact today. For someone who brings up Holocaust rhetoric to justify wars with anyone deemed a threat, you are rather myopic. Millions of blacks were captured from Africa and taken as property. Do you think this didn't have a devastating effect on Africa? Not only was Europe colonizing, but it was depopulating. I'm sure that didn't set them back too far. I'm also sure that handing out most of the free land in the country before blacks were given the rights of citizenship was fair as well. Setting them up in ghettos are sealing off the means of production probably wasn't that disruptive either. Drafting them out of proprortion to the population for Vietnam was just a coincidence too.

Go ahead, make you comparisons to abortion. There are times when abortions are the only way to save a life. Is this ever the case with slavery?

[Justin_stacy]

Originally posted by BustaNutz
Shut the hell up and stop preaching your goddamned republican conservative doctrine. Becuase of us, blacks are oppressed, to this day they are.

I find that statement (no doubt made in jest) to be ignorant and snobbish. Had the slave trade never been put into practice these problems wouldn't exist, and while the number of black americans would be far less, racism and prejudices (which stem from slavery) would be much much less and black people would live in America because of a choice made by their ancestors, not a choice made by ours.

how do you know whos ancestors made those choices? I know for a fact mine didn't nor did they support slavery, and infact one of them starved to death fighting it.......so maybe your family owes something to someone, but not all of us do......and again you tell him to stop preaching his conservative "doctrine" when you your self are preaching you liberal "doctrine", which in its self is a more truer cause of the racism and prejudice that African Americans face in this day.............

[BustaNutz]

Originally posted by Justin_stacy
how do you know whos ancestors made those choices? I know for a fact mine didn't nor did they support slavery, and infact one of them starved to death fighting it.......so maybe your family owes something to someone, but not all of us do......and again you tell him to stop preaching his conservative "doctrine" when you your self are preaching you liberal "doctrine", which in its self is a more truer cause of the racism and prejudice that African Americans face in this day.............

Yeah yeah why don't you tell the people on this forum your theory about how democrats "oppress" minorities, while republicans "help" them, please do tell. As for the ancestoral thing, my ancestors didn't own slaves either, They were immigrants to this nation in the early 1900's long after the civil war (My mom's entire family lives in Atchison, Kansas I don't know if that's close to you or not) So it wasn't my ancestors either, but when I say ours, I meant more along the lines of as a nation, our nation's ancestors. That's just semantics though and adds little to the arguement.

[BustaNutz]

Sorry if that came across as being a little bit nasty in tone, it wasn't meant to be. I'm just getting tired...

[Justin_stacy]

Originally posted by BustaNutz
Yeah yeah why don't you tell the people on this forum your theory about how democrats "oppress" minorities, while republicans "help" them, please do tell. As for the ancestoral thing, my ancestors didn't own slaves either, They were immigrants to this nation in the early 1900's long after the civil war (My mom's entire family lives in Atchison, Kansas I don't know if that's close to you or not) So it wasn't my ancestors either, but when I say ours, I meant more along the lines of as a nation, our nation's ancestors. That's just semantics though and adds little to the arguement.

it adds every thing to the arguement, because your accusing people of an evil that they had no part in and saying that they owe someone for something they don't.............as for your "theory" ideas you brought that up not me.........

and my relatives are from upstate NY....i just got lucky that they moved to kansas :rolleyes:

[BustaNutz]

Fair enough, I'm just saying that BrandNew's joke about reparations was pretty inappropriate. I'm going to bed, good arguing with you.

[Justin_stacy]

Originally posted by BustaNutz
Fair enough, I'm just saying that BrandNew's joke about reparations was pretty inappropriate. I'm going to bed, good arguing with you.

ya something shouldn't be joke about.......night bb...

[yeat182]

Originally posted by BustaNutz
Shut the hell up and stop preaching your goddamned republican conservative doctrine. Becuase of us, blacks are oppressed, to this day they are.

I find that statement (no doubt made in jest) to be ignorant and snobbish. Had the slave trade never been put into practice these problems wouldn't exist, and while the number of black americans would be far less, racism and prejudices (which stem from slavery) would be much much less and black people would live in America because of a choice made by their ancestors, not a choice made by ours.

let them take it up with the british govenment, they started the slave trade. or the african governments for that matter.

[yeat182]

Originally posted by devin
First, I'm wary of polls to begin with. People with a little knowledge of psychology can tell you the phrasing of a question can be as important as the content.



No, it's not old news. The legacy of slavery still has a strong impact today. For someone who brings up Holocaust rhetoric to justify wars with anyone deemed a threat, you are rather myopic. Millions of blacks were captured from Africa and taken as property.




there is a difference between the holocaust and slavery. there are no slaves alive today, no one alive today has felt any direct effects from slavery, no one alive today has ever owned a slave. there are still many holocaust survivors today, and there are still many people who had a part in making it a reality still alive as well.

[BrandNewRock05]

Originally posted by BustaNutz
Shut the hell up and stop preaching your goddamned republican conservative doctrine. Becuase of us, blacks are oppressed, to this day they are.

I find that statement (no doubt made in jest) to be ignorant and snobbish. Had the slave trade never been put into practice these problems wouldn't exist, and while the number of black americans would be far less, racism and prejudices (which stem from slavery) would be much much less and black people would live in America because of a choice made by their ancestors, not a choice made by ours.

Because of us? Excuse me? Us? I don’t know about you, but I have never owned a slave, nor has my parents, or their parents or their parents or their parents or their parents…..ever. Certain people owned slaves about 150 years ago, I didn’t even know them and I know for fact I wasn’t related to them. People in america today that are black have never lived through slavery, guarenteed. So don’t give me that bullshit that my ancestors did something that I should have to pay for. Because a) how many Irish people owned slaves
And b) even if my ancestors were slave owners, why should I have to pay for it?
And the comment about blacks is that Bossy said "old news" about the abortion thing. And its not. If she thinks that just because it happened a long time ago its automatically stupid, shes wrong, and that’s why I made the comment, not to joust blacks in any way, just to say that, hey this stuff is still relavant, so this "old news" bit wont hold.

Originally posted by devin
First, I'm wary of polls to begin with. People with a little knowledge of psychology can tell you the phrasing of a question can be as important as the content.



No, it's not old news. The legacy of slavery still has a strong impact today. For someone who brings up Holocaust rhetoric to justify wars with anyone deemed a threat, you are rather myopic. Millions of blacks were captured from Africa and taken as property. Do you think this didn't have a devastating effect on Africa? Not only was Europe colonizing, but it was depopulating. I'm sure that didn't set them back too far. I'm also sure that handing out most of the free land in the country before blacks were given the rights of citizenship was fair as well. Setting them up in ghettos are sealing off the means of production probably wasn't that disruptive either. Drafting them out of proprortion to the population for Vietnam was just a coincidence too.

Go ahead, make you comparisons to abortion. There are times when abortions are the only way to save a life. Is this ever the case with slavery?

The thing is about bringing up the Holocaust, is that we are facing almost mirror images of problems today. With slavery we are not, slavery is over, but you guys misconstrued my point, as all liberals do. My point was to bossydacow that abortion is still a relavant topic to speak about, when she said "old news" my point was that slavery is still in topic today, that happened 150 years ago. This news article may have come out a week ago, but its considered old news? Explain that to me. And I didn’t say that blacks were always treated fairly either. Economic prosperity is getting much better for the black population. Statistically a black couple who has kids and stays together will be just as economically sound as a white couple who does the same. But there lies the problem. Something like 70% of black childern are born out of wedlock, which sets them up for poverty, no issues of morality here, just facts. And the only comparisson to abortion I made was the old news bit, Ifound it insensitive that bossy would say old news about that, so I turned around and disshed it back, on something that she cared about. My point was never to start a whole slavery conversation, solely to say "hey, abortion is still a problem and still relavant, even if the article may be a little old" that is all, so tone it down man.

Originally posted by BustaNutz
Fair enough, I'm just saying that BrandNew's joke about reparations was pretty inappropriate. I'm going to bed, good arguing with you.

It wasn’t a joke about reparations.

[yeat182]

i'm irish and live in boston, where are my reparations?

[bossydacow]

Originally posted by BrandNewRock05

And the comment about blacks is that Bossy said "old news" about the abortion thing. And its not. If she thinks that just because it happened a long time ago its automatically stupid, shes wrong, and that’s why I made the comment, not to joust blacks in any way, just to say that, hey this stuff is still relavant, so this "old news" bit wont hold.



Something like 70% of black childern are born out of wedlock, which sets them up for poverty, no issues of morality here, just facts. And the only comparisson to abortion I made was the old news bit, Ifound it insensitive that bossy would say old news about that, so I turned around and disshed it back, on something that she cared about. My point was never to start a whole slavery conversation, solely to say "hey, abortion is still a problem and still relavant, even if the article may be a little old" that is all, so tone it down man.





well, seeing as how I don't believe in affirmative action, nor do I think that blacks should get payed for the ancestors slavery, Its not something I particularly care about a whole lot. Those things will only breed more racism.

and the subject of that article is old news. And its irrelevant because abortion debates never go anywhere, no matter who changes their mind about what. Look at this forum! We've all participated in a number of abortion debates and has anyone really changed their mind? I haven't. Abortion rates have gone down, sooner or later hardly anybody will want one, and there are far more important things our politicians should be worrying about, like issues that effect PEOPLE who have established lives. Not a 7 week old fetus, with no established lives, no hopes or dreams or fears ect. ect. ect.

[Ronin]

Originally posted by yeat182
there is a difference between the holocaust and slavery. there are no slaves alive today, no one alive today has felt any direct effects from slavery, no one alive today has ever owned a slave. there are still many holocaust survivors today, and there are still many people who had a part in making it a reality still alive as well.

The vast majority of living african-americans have experienced some type of racial discrimination in his/her lifetime.

Racism is the effect of slavery, and I would imagine that it's still being felt today.

[Ronin]

Originally posted by yeat182
i'm irish and live in boston, where are my reparations?


I didn't know the irish were slaves.

[yeat182]

Originally posted by Ronin
The vast majority of living african-americans have experienced some type of racial discrimination in his/her lifetime.

Racism is the effect of slavery, and I would imagine that it's still being felt today.

there are racists in every country, it is not a direct result of having slavery (although it certainly didn't help) but you can't say that if there was no slavery there would be no racism...there was no slavery in germany, but some hated the jews, and the slavs. there is no slavery in the middle east, yet arabs hate jews and vice versa...slavery certainly didn't help race relations, but these problems aren't the sole result of slavery.

[yeat182]

Originally posted by Ronin
I didn't know the irish were slaves.

they virtually were, they were sold into indentured servitude, forced to work what essentially was slave labor on the railroads, and they were totally discrimintated against in society, they couldn't get jobs or own land. the same could be said for most of the chinese that came to this country in the 1800's.

[BustaNutz]

Originally posted by yeat182
there are racists in every country, it is not a direct result of having slavery (although it certainly didn't help) but you can't say that if there was no slavery there would be no racism...there was no slavery in germany, but some hated the jews, and the slavs. there is no slavery in the middle east, yet arabs hate jews and vice versa...slavery certainly didn't help race relations, but these problems aren't the sole result of slavery.

You can't tell me that if blacks had immigrated here like the Irish that the amount of discrimination they face today wouldn't be dramatically less than what it is now. Racism in this nation and most other nations are the results of slavery. As for the jews in Germany, they were hated because Hitler made them the scapegoats, and the arabs and jews in the middle east hate each other as a result of a long history of past conflicts. If the slave trade hadn't existed andb lacks had come here as immigrants they'd be in the same boat as Irish-Americans and German-Americans are today, they'd just be Americans.


Originally posted by yeat182
they virtually were, they were sold into indentured servitude, forced to work what essentially was slave labor on the railroads, and they were totally discrimintated against in society, they couldn't get jobs or own land. the same could be said for most of the chinese that came to this country in the 1800's.

The Chinese and Irish chose to come here, Africans did not, they were forced to come here. So in that respect it's not even comprable. The african-american community is still facing the effects of slavery. Evidenced by segregation through the sixties, evidences by the prevelance of racism in the south, evidenced by the mere fact that when the nation went through it's biggest economic boom in and around the fifties and sixties, only about 20 percent of blacks were attending colleges due to laws that didn't afford them the same oppurtunities. And don't give me the crap about having a chance now, when you're parents and grandparents were afforded no oppurtunities and you're born into poverty it's difficult to pull yourself up. Because of slavery the African-American community is still ailing to this day, so yes it is a relevant topic.

And as for BrandNewRock, reparations is when blacks seek compensation for the slave trade, the way you phrased your statement made it look like that is what you were refering to.

[yeat182]

first, my point is that racism exists without slavery, and i conceded the point that slavery made it worse.

secondly, if you are going to give reperations based on what happened to the ancestors of afrcian americans, than you must also do the same for irish amercians, chinese americans, native americans, etc. etc. i didn't mean to say that they were the same situation, but you say that people today don't have the same oppurtuinites because their fathers and grandfathers were born into poverty, yet the exact same thing can be said for the Irish, the Chinese or the indians...

"And don't give me the crap about having a chance now, when you're parents and grandparents were afforded no oppurtunities and you're born into poverty it's difficult to pull yourself up" -exactly the same as the irish, chinese, native americans.

[BustaNutz]

You miss my point, the Chines and Irish and German chose to come here! The Africans were forced to, there-in lies the difference. If the Africans chose to come here, then it would be an entirely different scenario, but they didn't they were literally ripped from their homes, from their families and brought to this country as slaves. That deserves reparations, Immigrants chose to come here as immigrants, that doesn't warrant reparations, it's apples and oranges.

[Justin_stacy]

Originally posted by BustaNutz
That deserves reparations, Immigrants chose to come here as immigrants, that doesn't warrant reparations, it's apples and oranges.

say we hand out reparations, that would then make us all equals right? So all race based social programs and quota systems would be ended immediately following the signatures on the checks................

[BustaNutz]

Ok let me rephrase that, they are jusitified in wanting reparations, at this stage we're not in position to hand them out. And social programs aren't for just blacks, they're for the impovershed and needy so no that wouldn't make them end.

[Justin_stacy]

Originally posted by BustaNutz
Ok let me rephrase that, they are jusitified in wanting reparations, at this stage we're not in position to hand them out. And social programs aren't for just blacks, they're for the impovershed and needy so no that wouldn't make them end.

i understand i thought you were wanting now..........and i didn't say all social programs, i said those based on race............

[yeat182]

Originally posted by BustaNutz
You miss my point, the Chines and Irish and German chose to come here! The Africans were forced to, there-in lies the difference. If the Africans chose to come here, then it would be an entirely different scenario, but they didn't they were literally ripped from their homes, from their families and brought to this country as slaves. That deserves reparations, Immigrants chose to come here as immigrants, that doesn't warrant reparations, it's apples and oranges.

then it sounds to me like you have a problem with the africans that sold the slaves in the first place.

[yeat182]

Originally posted by BustaNutz
You miss my point, the Chines and Irish and German chose to come here! The Africans were forced to, there-in lies the difference. If the Africans chose to come here, then it would be an entirely different scenario, but they didn't they were literally ripped from their homes, from their families and brought to this country as slaves. That deserves reparations, Immigrants chose to come here as immigrants, that doesn't warrant reparations, it's apples and oranges.

and my point is, all those groups managed to overcome their hardships, their poverty, their being shunned by society, and they did it all on their own with out any help from anyone. they didn't sit around and blame all their problems on someone else, they went out there and became succesfull on their own. there is a difference in how both groups got to be poverty stricken, you are right about that, but the bottom line is, both found themselves in the same situation, and one group has managed to pull themselves out of it, and the other is looking for hand outs.

[BustaNutz]

Originally posted by yeat182
and my point is, all those groups managed to overcome their hardships, their poverty, their being shunned by society, and they did it all on their own with out any help from anyone. they didn't sit around and blame all their problems on someone else, they went out there and became succesfull on their own. there is a difference in how both groups got to be poverty stricken, you are right about that, but the bottom line is, both found themselves in the same situation, and one group has managed to pull themselves out of it, and the other is looking for hand outs.

Slavery is in no way like being an immigrant, even with forced servitudes, they're not the same thing. And the Irish were not continually segregated, and held out of schools and not allowed to vote once they moved here, the Africans were. So the African-American community has the right to feel it is still be hampered by the effects of the slave trade to some extent they still are. The Irish were never forced to undergo that, and what they did face, they faced as a result of a decision THEY made, not a decision SOMEONE ELSE made.

[Ronin]

Originally posted by yeat182
then it sounds to me like you have a problem with the africans that sold the slaves in the first place.

So because America bought the slaves from african slave traders, it has no responsibility for its actions?

I buy a gun from a man, and I use it to kill someone. Who's responsible, me or the person who sold me the gun?

[yeat182]

Originally posted by BustaNutz
And the Irish were not continually segregated, and held out of schools and not allowed to vote once they moved here, the Africans were.

during most of the 1800's, and even into the 1900's they were.

[yeat182]

Originally posted by Ronin
So because America bought the slaves from african slave traders, it has no responsibility for its actions?

I buy a gun from a man, and I use it to kill someone. Who's responsible, me or the person who sold me the gun?

britain bought the slaves.

so, selling people into slavery is ok, just not buying them?

[BustaNutz]

Ok here goes. First of all if anyone deserves reparations, it's the Native Americans. And if you diagree with me on that I will hit you. We totally (for lack of a better word) screwed them. And while yes there are other groups who went through struggles, none faced even close the same level of struggle as the African Americans did. So they deserve reparations moreso than the other group and I feel they are justified in wanting reparations. Never did I say we should give out reparations. As I mentioned before were not in the position to do so, and it would be difficult to even decide how to go about doing it if we did. But as for the issue, it is valid and blacks do have a case.

[BrandNewRock05]

Originally posted by BustaNutz
You miss my point, the Chines and Irish and German chose to come here! The Africans were forced to, there-in lies the difference. If the Africans chose to come here, then it would be an entirely different scenario, but they didn't they were literally ripped from their homes, from their families and brought to this country as slaves. That deserves reparations, Immigrants chose to come here as immigrants, that doesn't warrant reparations, it's apples and oranges.
Good point. But now people without ever owning slaves and the likely possibility that their ancestors didnt osn slaves are forced to pay people who were never slaves. Now is that fair? Just because I am white? No.

[BustaNutz]

No, I didn't say we SHOULD, I presented the case for blacks. And if we did we wouldn't be paying because we are white, we would be paying because we are American and our country made a mistake.

[yeat182]

Originally posted by BustaNutz
Ok here goes. First of all if anyone deserves reparations, it's the Native Americans. And if you diagree with me on that I will hit you. We totally (for lack of a better word) screwed them. And while yes there are other groups who went through struggles, none faced even close the same level of struggle as the African Americans did. So they deserve reparations moreso than the other group and I feel they are justified in wanting reparations. Never did I say we should give out reparations. As I mentioned before were not in that position and it would be difficult to even decide how to go about doing it. But as for the issue, it is valid and blacks do have a case.


i agree, that blacks have had a harder time. but i don't think they deserve reperations, but if you are going to give them reperations, then there are a bunch of other groups that deserve them aswell.

[yeat182]

Originally posted by BustaNutz
No, I didn't say we SHOULD, I presented the case for blacks. And if we did we wouldn't be paying because we are white, we would be paying because we are American and our country made a mistake.

they are americans too, so does that mean they would also pay for the reperatoins that they are recieveing?

[burntomorrow]

Originally posted by BustaNutz
Ok here goes. First of all if anyone deserves reparations, it's the Native Americans. And if you diagree with me on that I will hit you. We totally (for lack of a better word) screwed them. And while yes there are other groups who went through struggles, none faced even close the same level of struggle as the African Americans did. So they deserve reparations moreso than the other group and I feel they are justified in wanting reparations. Never did I say we should give out reparations. As I mentioned before were not in the position to do so, and it would be difficult to even decide how to go about doing it if we did. But as for the issue, it is valid and blacks do have a case.

that's a good point. i ran a case on insurance covering traditional native americans once this year, but some of the evidence is pretty interesting.

[BrandNewRock05]

Originally posted by yeat182
they are americans too, so does that mean they would also pay for the reperatoins that they are recieveing?
Personally i think nobody should get reparations unless the actually had to live through something. And I agree that Native Americans are the most deserving, however I think that we are too far passed the actual event to do anything. Not to be offensive or anything, but they have their casinos. That rakes in a ton of dough each day, and most casinos turn some back the community too, so I am greatful for that. However it was a LONG time ago, and its just not plausable to give people money for stuff they didnt suffer for.

[Ronin]

Originally posted by yeat182
britain bought the slaves.

so, selling people into slavery is ok, just not buying them?

Neither is OK, I'm just saying that we as a people are just as responsible, we can't pawn it off on the african slave traders.

Edit: It's not like our ancestors got offered the slaves and were like "Well, it's morally reprehensible, but these slave traders are offering us such a good deal, who could say no?"

[yeat182]

Originally posted by Ronin
Neither is OK, I'm just saying that we as a people are just as responsible, we can't pawn it off on the african slave traders.

Edit: It's not like our ancestors got offered the slaves and were like "Well, it's morally reprehensible, but these slave traders are offering us such a good deal, who could say no?"


but we aren't responsible because we didn't own slaves, or sell slaves.

[Justin_stacy]

Originally posted by Ronin

I buy a gun from a man, and I use it to kill someone. Who's responsible, me or the person who sold me the gun?

it depends on you political ideas to answer that.........a liberal would say the person who sold you the gun, because people aren't personally respondisible for there actions, and conservative would say you because you chose to take the actions..........:D

[devin]

I don't feel anyone should get reparations per se. Quite simply, all of the principles died long ago. But I can't deny that I have been given advantages due to my skin color. Sure, my family only came here in the 1920s. Sure, I am in the first generation of my family to go to college. I am still convinced that I had a head start. I do not have the answers for how Asians have managed to elevate themselves from an underprivileged minority to virtually equal economic standing with whites. I don't think it was about giving out checks. Blacks and Indians are in a serious hole in the country. That is irrefutable. I don't think reparations will help. But neither will sitting on our hands and calling them lazy.

[yeat182]

Originally posted by Justin_stacy
it depends on you political ideas to answer that.........a liberal would say the person who sold you the gun, because people aren't personally respondisible for there actions, and conservative would say you because you chose to take the actions..........:D

yes but that "gun" would have been stolen away from its "owner", so both are responsible.

[kidinthecorner]

Originally posted by BustaNutz
You can't tell me that if blacks had immigrated here like the Irish that the amount of discrimination they face today wouldn't be dramatically less than what it is now. Racism in this nation and most other nations are the results of slavery. As for the jews in Germany, they were hated because Hitler made them the scapegoats, and the arabs and jews in the middle east hate each other as a result of a long history of past conflicts. If the slave trade hadn't existed andb lacks had come here as immigrants they'd be in the same boat as Irish-Americans and German-Americans are today, they'd just be Americans.


Now I know this isn't "nice," but do you really think, even if Africans had immigrated here on their own they wouldn't have faced racism? An Irishman or a German can blend in to a group of whites pretty easily once they learn the customs or drop their accent. A black guy will always stand out as different, and as wrong as it is, people will be prejudiced to the different person. An African-American would still get more unfair treatment than an Irish guy if they both came freely at the exact same time.

[Justin_stacy]

Originally posted by devin
. I don't think reparations will help. But neither will sitting on our hands and calling them lazy.

but isn't partial (if not all) there own respondisablity to get themselves on the same "playing" level.......they can't always look to others to get them there..............

[devin]

Originally posted by Justin_stacy
but isn't partial (if not all) there own respondisablity to get themselves on the same "playing" level.......they can't always look to others to get them there..............

I really don't know. It's impossible to deny that they have been set back tremendously. It's like entering a game of Monopoly after all of the property is taken. You may last a few rounds, but in the long run, you're going to lose. Yes, blacks have made baby steps. But they're a long way off, and Indians are even further behind. It does take a lot of motivation, but it also takes some chances.

[BustaNutz]

Ok a few things. First I never said "give reparations to them" I only said why african-americans are justified in wanting them, there is a difference. Next, the Native Americans deserve it more than the African-Americans do, so if it happened they would be first in line.

Also, I didn't say black's wouldn't face racism, I said they'd face left. Asians don't look like we do, yet they are now ofr the most part accepted. If blacks had immigrated here rather than been forced her under the slave-trade the level of racism would be much less. Not saying it wouldn't exist, just saying it wouldn't be as prevelant.

But my main point, I never said we should give reparations, I was more expressing where I could agree with some of the african-americans' reasons for wanting them.

[devin]

I think it is significant that blacks came to America as slaves. For years here, they were treated as chattel. Even when then ended, they were considered an inferior minority. "Scientists" even produced studies about how the black man was a lesser being. Equal rights for blacks is a relatively new thing. Maybe none of us were involved in the slave trade, but there are lingering cultural effects.

[yeat182]

Originally posted by devin
I think it is significant that blacks came to America as slaves. For years here, they were treated as chattel. Even when then ended, they were considered an inferior minority. "Scientists" even produced studies about how the black man was a lesser being. Equal rights for blacks is a relatively new thing. Maybe none of us were involved in the slave trade, but there are lingering cultural effects.

"scientists" also produced studies claiming the jews were inferior to the germans. that doesn't mean anything. i agree that there are cultural affects, but an equal share of those affects rest on the shoulders of african americans themselves. as we've already pointed out, there are lots of groups that had hard times, but they managed to get the better of it and come on top.

[BustaNutz]

There was never a group which was discriminate against for as long as the blacks. The Jews were discriminated against, and yes that was awful, but it didn't last over 200 years. And after WWII they were given rights back. After slavery ended Balcks were still second class citizens. They were until the 60's. In the course of 40 years it's impossible to make up for over 200 years of opression.

[yeat182]

Originally posted by BustaNutz
There was never a group which was discriminate against for as long as the blacks. The Jews were discriminated against, and yes that was awful, but it didn't last over 200 years. And after WWII they were given rights back. After slavery ended Balcks were still second class citizens. They were until the 60's. In the course of 40 years it's impossible to make up for over 200 years of opression.

well you could say the indians were discriminated against for longer, but i get your point. i wasn't saying the jews have it worse now, i was just pointing out that "scientists" can say any race is superior, so it really means nothing.

[BustaNutz]

Ok, and actually I did say earlier that Native Americans had it worse.

[bossydacow]

Originally posted by devin
I do not have the answers for how Asians have managed to elevate themselves from an underprivileged minority to virtually equal economic standing with whites. I don't think it was about giving out checks. Blacks and Indians are in a serious hole in the country. That is irrefutable. I don't think reparations will help. But neither will sitting on our hands and calling them lazy.

The reason Asians are where they are today is because when they first came to America they could only enter under certain standards, and sometimes those standards included having skill or an education. Thats an advantage over blacks, who came in chains and were denied education so that when they were finally free, they were uneducated and did not know how to live in America as free people. Mentally, Asians were years ahead of them.

[yeat182]

Originally posted by bossydacow
The reason Asians are where they are today is because when they first came to America they could only enter under certain standards, and sometimes those standards included having skill or an education. Thats an advantage over blacks, who came in chains and were denied education so that when they were finally free, they were uneducated and did not know how to live in America as free people. Mentally, Asians were years ahead of them.

most asians that came here originally worked essentially as slaves on the railroad. they didn't have any benefits and had very little if any education.

[devin]

Originally posted by yeat182
"scientists" also produced studies claiming the jews were inferior to the germans. that doesn't mean anything. i agree that there are cultural affects, but an equal share of those affects rest on the shoulders of african americans themselves. as we've already pointed out, there are lots of groups that had hard times, but they managed to get the better of it and come on top.

I used the quotation marks to express my skepticism. It does mean something. Until very recently, the inferiority of blacks was accepted by the culture. You cannot blame blacks that we enslaved them or refused them the rights of ctizenship. And you cannot trivialize the disadvantage this put them at.

[bossydacow]

Originally posted by yeat182
most asians that came here originally worked essentially as slaves on the railroad. they didn't have any benefits and had very little if any education.

yeah, but they came to US with some previous education.

[yeat182]

Originally posted by devin
I used the quotation marks to express my skepticism. It does mean something. Until very recently, the inferiority of blacks was accepted by the culture. You cannot blame blacks that we enslaved them or refused them the rights of ctizenship. And you cannot trivialize the disadvantage this put them at.

i'm not tirvializing it, i am simply pointing out the fact that there have been many other groups that have faced serious disadvantages and they mangaged to succede without asking for reperations, and that if we were to give reperations to african-americans, besides the fact that it would only worsen race relations, we would also have to give reperations to other groups.

[kidinthecorner]

Originally posted by BustaNutz
There was never a group which was discriminate against for as long as the blacks. The Jews were discriminated against, and yes that was awful, but it didn't last over 200 years. And after WWII they were given rights back. After slavery ended Balcks were still second class citizens. They were until the 60's. In the course of 40 years it's impossible to make up for over 200 years of opression. The Jews have been scapegoats much, much longer than the African-Americans have. The Jews have been scapegoats and lesser-being for centuries. The Romans treated them like shit, but that wasn't quite 200 years ago, was it? You forget that the Holocaust wasn't the ONLY time they were singled out and discriminated against.

[devin]

Originally posted by yeat182
i'm not tirvializing it, i am simply pointing out the fact that there have been many other groups that have faced serious disadvantages and they mangaged to succede without asking for reperations, and that if we were to give reperations to african-americans, besides the fact that it would only worsen race relations, we would also have to give reperations to other groups.

I'd like to see your list, I'll start it:
Blacks
Native Americans...

[BustaNutz]

Ok, that's dating back to biblical times and if you will remember before the Romans treated the Jews like shit, the Jews treated the Christians like shit, fed them to lions even. So that goes back and forth, and we're talking about the modern era, not way back thousands of years ago, in the modern era the Jews suffering while bad isn't even comprable to that of the blacks.

[BustaNutz]

Originally posted by devin
I'd like to see your list, I'll start it:
Blacks
Native Americans...

Well by this logic they have to include every immigrant that ever made a conscious choice to come here and had to start from scratch (even though they didn't mind the sitiuation because it was better than the situation they face previously)... and if you're a conservative republican you'd find a way to compensate the rich because that's what you do...

Actually in seriousness along with Native Americans and Africans Americans I think holocaust survivors have a case as well as many of them are still alive.

[yeat182]

Originally posted by devin
I'd like to see your list, I'll start it:
Blacks
Native Americans...

irish
chinese
japanese americans

[yeat182]

Originally posted by BustaNutz
Ok, that's dating back to biblical times and if you will remember before the Romans treated the Jews like shit, the Jews treated the Christians like shit, fed them to lions even. So that goes back and forth, and we're talking about the modern era, not way back thousands of years ago, in the modern era the Jews suffering while bad isn't even comprable to that of the blacks.

i would say it was much worse in that the Jews were being exterminated. the blacks were slaves, but they were valuable to their owners and at least were kept alive.

[BustaNutz]

I'm not saying it wasn't worse, what I'm saying is the the holocaust didn't last as long as the slave trade, so it's a different set of circumstances. It was horrible what happened in the holocaust, but the Slave trade was horrible too...

[yeat182]

Originally posted by BustaNutz
I'm not saying it wasn't worse, what I'm saying is the the holocaust didn't last as long as the slave trade, so it's a different set of circumstances. It was horrible what happened in the holocaust, but the Slave trade was horrible too...

gotcha...

[yeat182]

Originally posted by cal1082
I dont think Jewish people would deserve reparations too. Why do you deserve money for something that would ahve happend to your great grand parents, or your great great grandparents? Now maybe if they're alive they could sue, i've heard of cases like that, but there childrens and childrens children dont deserve free money.

Money's not the cure all for problems.

yeah, i'm pretty sure we are talking about the survivors, maybe the children of people killed in the camps, but thats about it.

[evil zach]

The effects of slavery are still being felt today

[Justin_stacy]

Originally posted by BustaNutz
There was never a group which was discriminate against for as long as the blacks. The Jews were discriminated against, and yes that was awful, but it didn't last over 200 years. And after WWII they were given rights back. After slavery ended Balcks were still second class citizens. They were until the 60's. In the course of 40 years it's impossible to make up for over 200 years of opression.

actually "jews" have been discriminated against (and murdered) for thousands of years in europe and russia (pogroms), long before WWII and the nazis and long before slavery in the states........and how were they given there rights back? They, well those that weren't slaughtored, had to leave Europe because of the hatred that still existed even after the allies won the war, see the hatred didn't start with hitler and the nazis...........

[Ronin]

Originally posted by Justin_stacy
actually "jews" have been discriminated against (and murdered) for thousands of years in europe and russia (pogroms), long before WWII and the nazis and long before slavery in the states........and how were they given there rights back? They, well those that weren't slaughtored, had to leave Europe because of the hatred that still existed even after the allies won the war, see the hatred didn't start with hitler and the nazis...........

The man speaks true. Hitler used the Jews as a scape-goat for reasons other than personal hatred. They were an easy target because the German people (by and large) hated them. It's been the same throughout Europe for the past few centuries. There's even evidence that Stalin was getting ready for his own holocaust just before he died. And it surely would have been on par or worse than Hitlers.

Just wondering, did Holocaust Jews get any reperations from the German government? My memory is hazy on this.

[Justin_stacy]

Originally posted by Ronin

Just wondering, did Holocaust Jews get any reperations from the German government? My memory is hazy on this.

some did, but i think it was more from the business that used them for labor (bmw, ect), then the government that actually killed them (and i think germany helped fund israel following the war, but i truly never looked into it that much)..........but you also must remimber that the US paid 20,000$ to each Japanesse american taht was interned by FDR, but of course here it was only to those still ALIVE................

[BustaNutz]

Ok so the Jews have had it worse, and now I look a little bit dumb...

But we were talking about American reparations not European and Russian reparations and my point still stands, that Blacks and Native Americans would have some valid arguements in wanting them...

[Ronin]

So we all agree that there were injustices against racial minorities in North America

And I think we all agree that the effects are still felt today, and they can be pretty powerful.

What everyone disagrees on is the way to remedy the situation. I agree that affirmative action is essentially reverse racism, and it's no way to break down racial barriers. I'm not sure if I agree with the idea of reperations, but I agree that they have a case.

Can anyone suggest some outside of the box ideas for bringing all races/cultures in North America onto an even playing field? If money and jobs aren't the answer, what is? You can't just ignore the problem, because it won't go away. You need to change the way our culture thinks about this situation.

[BustaNutz]

Originally posted by Ronin
So we all agree that there were injustices against racial minorities in North America

And I think we all agree that the effects are still felt today, and they can be pretty powerful.

What everyone disagrees on is the way to remedy the situation. I agree that affirmative action is essentially reverse racism, and it's no way to break down racial barriers. I'm not sure if I agree with the idea of reperations, but I agree that they have a case.

Can anyone suggest some outside of the box ideas for bringing all races/cultures in North America onto an even playing field? If money and jobs aren't the answer, what is? You can't just ignore the problem, because it won't go away. You need to change the way our culture thinks about this situation.

Don't make cracks on this, but I think it may be kind of true, unless America swtiches to some sort of communist or socialist government where everyone is essentially equal, we will never get past the prejudices we have right now. I'm not saying we should, I am saying that it would help to alleviate all of these problems...

[yeat182]

Originally posted by Ronin
So we all agree that there were injustices against racial minorities in North America

And I think we all agree that the effects are still felt today, and they can be pretty powerful.

What everyone disagrees on is the way to remedy the situation. I agree that affirmative action is essentially reverse racism, and it's no way to break down racial barriers. I'm not sure if I agree with the idea of reperations, but I agree that they have a case.

Can anyone suggest some outside of the box ideas for bringing all races/cultures in North America onto an even playing field? If money and jobs aren't the answer, what is? You can't just ignore the problem, because it won't go away. You need to change the way our culture thinks about this situation.

i think the only answer is to just give it time. every generation of children that grows up has more and more tolerance, and less predjudice, and they will teach their children, and so on and so on, and eventually things will be better. look how far we've come in the past 40 years...you can't really change eveyones mind all at once, but you can teach children how to treat people and as they grow up they can pass that on to the next generation.

[Ronin]

Originally posted by yeat182
i think the only answer is to just give it time. every generation of children that grows up has more and more tolerance, and less predjudice, and they will teach their children, and so on and so on, and eventually things will be better. look how far we've come in the past 40 years...you can't really change eveyones mind all at once, but you can teach children how to treat people and as they grow up they can pass that on to the next generation.

Parents will pass their values on to their children

If the parents are racist, there's a good chance the kids will be racist.

Not being a dick, but can you think of any problem that has just "gone away" without any action being taken?

We have definitely come a long way in 40 years, but are very few people in our society who don't know a single "******" joke.

The day our society is equal, someone will tell one of those jokes, and the other person will say "I don't get it"

[BustaNutz]

Originally posted by yeat182
i think the only answer is to just give it time. every generation of children that grows up has more and more tolerance, and less predjudice, and they will teach their children, and so on and so on, and eventually things will be better. look how far we've come in the past 40 years...you can't really change eveyones mind all at once, but you can teach children how to treat people and as they grow up they can pass that on to the next generation.

You still have places where they teach hate to their children and as long as that goes on you will never be able to overcome the problem. I used to live in Atlanta, which I consider to be a diverse city and a fairly accepting city (fairly) but the minute you leave the Atlanta area and head off into rural Georgia, you find a lot of very backwards very racial discriminative people. And it's like that throughout the south, In Tenneessee, Mississippi, The Carolinas, Alabama, Kentucky and even through Florida, that's a lot of very closeminded people and that may not go away with time, it may just fester. So yes I agree it could get better, it won't fix itself...

[Justin_stacy]

Originally posted by BustaNutz
You still have places where they teach hate to their children and as long as that goes on you will never be able to overcome the problem. I used to live in Atlanta, which I consider to be a diverse city and a fairly accepting city (fairly) but the minute you leave the Atlanta area and head off into rural Georgia, you find a lot of very backwards very racial discriminative people. And it's like that throughout the south, In Tenneessee, Mississippi, The Carolinas, Alabama, Kentucky and even through Florida, that's a lot of very closeminded people and that may not go away with time, it may just fester. So yes I agree it could get better, it won't fix itself...

but its also not just on the "white" side where hatred and ignorance exist.........

[BustaNutz]

Oh of course it's not, I was just speaking from my own experience. Malcolm X, one of the most influencial civil rights leaders preached some very anti-white messages, he even said that we got what we deserved (the whites) when Kennedy was assasinated. I was just speaking from my own experience...

[Justin_stacy]

Originally posted by BustaNutz
Oh of course it's not, I was just speaking from my own experience. Malcolm X, one of the most influencial civil rights leaders preached some very anti-white messages, he even said that we got what we deserved (the whites) when Kennedy was assasinated. I was just speaking from my own experience...

.............and Louis Farekon is probably one of the biggest racist the world has ever seen and he is considered a leader by some african american groups...........so all im saying is that both groups need to work on the "racial" issue....its not just one sides fault, and its not just one side that needs to change..........

[BustaNutz]

Originally posted by Justin_stacy
.............and Louis Farekon is probably one of the biggest racist the world has ever seen and he is considered a leader by some african american groups...........so all im saying is that both groups need to work on the "racial" issue....its not just one sides fault, and its not just one side that needs to change..........

I know I wasn't saying it was only the fault of white people, it's both sides, my point was more that this wouldn't fix itself with time.

[paperheartgirl]

but who wants the gov't to make the decision....whouldn't you want the power to decide...yeah abortion is terrible but the issue reaches far beyond the actual act of abortion its whether or not were going to let gov't take over another sector of our lives

[WithStamin]

Originally posted by paperheartgirl
but who wants the gov't to make the decision....whouldn't you want the power to decide...yeah abortion is terrible but the issue reaches far beyond the actual act of abortion its whether or not were going to let gov't take over another sector of our lives Good point. You know, I also don't want to government to decide if we can murder or not. It's not their decision, why should they interfere? Same thing with grand theft auto. If I want the car, and I'm willing to take the risk, why should the government be involved?
[/sarcasm]

The government makes laws for the protection of its people. Whether or not abortion should be legal is debatable, the the government absolutely does have the authority to regulate it.

[Ronin]

Originally posted by WithStamin
Good point. You know, I also don't want to government to decide if we can murder or not. It's not their decision, why should they interfere? Same thing with grand theft auto. If I want the car, and I'm willing to take the risk, why should the government be involved?
[/sarcasm]

The government makes laws for the protection of its people. Whether or not abortion should be legal is debatable, the the government absolutely does have the authority to regulate it.

But abortion is a personal issue, murder and grand theft auto affect other people.

And yes, you're going to say that abortion affects the fetus, which is essentially murder, but I am of the opinion that the fetus is not a person, so we can't really resolve this.

But in my opinion, the government can't dictate to the people whether or not they can get abortions, because it is a personal decision that doesn't impact on anyone else. The government doesn't have the power to censure personal choice. If i want to sit in my room and cover the walls with Nazi propoganda, I can do that. If i want to sit in my room and smash my TV, I can do that. As long as I keep it to myself.

[BustaNutz]

Originally posted by WithStamin
Good point. You know, I also don't want to government to decide if we can murder or not. It's not their decision, why should they interfere? Same thing with grand theft auto. If I want the car, and I'm willing to take the risk, why should the government be involved?
[/sarcasm]

The government makes laws for the protection of its people. Whether or not abortion should be legal is debatable, the the government absolutely does have the authority to regulate it.

I think she made a good point. She was right in stating that it is a personal decision. And despite all the issues of morality that rise from it, it is essentially true that it is a woman's choice.

Now before you start I'll concede two things to you. First of all partial birth abortion IS murder plain and simple. It is a grotesque, vile form of a murder. I also believe that after the first trimester, abortion should be illegal because if in the first three months a woman hasn't made a decision on whether she wants the child it is too late.

However, that being said, within the first trimester the fetus is not developed enough to live on it's own, and by that virtue it isn't alive. So if the woman feels strongly enough she should be given the option and the means to carry it out in a healthy, protected environment with a doctor to look over the procedure.

Two reasons for this, first of all even if you outlaw it, it will still be done. Many women used to die from the procedure when it wasn't performed properly by a doctor. And if this is still going to be done, with or without government consent, then the government needs to assess this differently.

Secondly, on an issue such as this, religious beliefs shouldn't enter into the decision making process. The goverment preaches separation of church and state, and the reason this is such a greatly protested subject is due to religious beliefs.

And before you call me a name, personally, I advocate adoption. I believe abortion should be a LAST resort and a woman shouldn't ever make that decision unless absolutely neccesary (rape, incest or a life-threatening pregnancy). But I don't think it's the government's right to make it illegal. They need to offer it.

[yeat182]

yeah, i don't see how people can be against abortion but for guns. its contridictory on a couple of levels. first you advocate owning weapons whose only purpose is to kill something, yet you claim to be against "murder (abortion). then you say that the government has the right to protect innocent lives and outlaw abortion, but they don't have the right to protect people and outlaw guns.....it doesn't add up at all.

[Justin_stacy]

Originally posted by Ronin

But in my opinion, the government can't dictate to the people whether or not they can get abortions, because it is a personal decision that doesn't impact on anyone else. The government doesn't have the power to censure personal choice. If i want to sit in my room and cover the walls with Nazi propoganda, I can do that. If i want to sit in my room and smash my TV, I can do that. As long as I keep it to myself.

where do you live? the government, based on public opinion, makes many laws that effect "personal" chioce.....smoking age, drug laws, marriage age, working age requirements, school attendence......ect.........

[Justin_stacy]

Originally posted by yeat182
first you advocate owning weapons whose only purpose is to kill something, .

not all guns have only "murderous purposes".......

[BustaNutz]

Originally posted by Justin_stacy
not all guns have only "murderous purposes".......

No not ALL guns, hunting rifles don't. But then again if you want to be extremist you could say "they kill animals, which is murder" so I suppose it can me seen that way. But I'll agree some are intended for hunting. But others, such as assault rifles and handguns are definitely not for the purpose of hunting.

[yeat182]

Originally posted by Justin_stacy
not all guns have only "murderous purposes".......

guns are designed for one purpose, to shoot something. shooting something will either kill it, or severely wound it, usless it is an inanimate object, in which case, there is no reason to shoot it.

[yeat182]

Originally posted by BustaNutz
No not ALL guns, hunting rifles don't. But then again if you want to be extremist you could say "they kill animals, which is murder" so I suppose it can me seen that way. But I'll agree some are intended for hunting. But others, such as assault rifles and handguns are definitely not for the purpose of hunting.

yeah, i don't consider hunting murder, but the only purpose of a gun is to kill, that is what it is designed for. but my main point is how contradictory it is to be against gun control and against abortion.

[BustaNutz]

Originally posted by yeat182
yeah, i don't consider hunting murder, but the only purpose of a gun is to kill, that is what it is designed for. but my main point is how contradictory it is to be against gun control and against abortion.

That was my point as well, and I agree with you completely.

[yeat182]

Originally posted by BustaNutz
That was my point as well, and I agree with you completely.

right on

[BustaNutz]

Originally posted by cal1082
I'm for one, and not for the other. Mr reasoning is this. A gun is for killing but not just for killing people. People hunt with guns, and a large amount of supporters of guns collect them like you would baseball cards. The vast majority have no intention of using the gun to kill a person. Abortion is only used to terminate a life, and nothing more.

Do more fetus' "Die" from abortion every year. Or do more people die from gunshot wounds?

[BustaNutz]

Originally posted by cal1082
i have no clue. I'd like to see though the percentage of guns used in murders that are legally owned guns.

Well I don't have figures, but I'd be willing to wager a large sum of money that more people die every year from gun wounds fired from legally purchased guns than there are abortions performed.

[BustaNutz]

Originally posted by cal1082
i'm all for getting the guns off the streets and out of hands of people who would use them on someone. On the other hand, if i want a gun and i go through all the legal matters and meet all the standards to recieve one i think i shoudl be able to get one.

There's no way of determining who would use them poorly and who would be responsible with them. I know there are people who use them correctly, but there are also people who don't. And it's a liability.

[yeat182]

Originally posted by cal1082
I'm for one, and not for the other. My reasoning is this. A gun is for killing but not just for killing people. People hunt with guns, and a large amount of supporters of guns collect them like you would baseball cards. The vast majority have no intention of using the gun to kill a person. Abortion is only used to terminate a life, and nothing more.

guns are only meant for killing, be it man or animal, the bottom line is that the only purpose of a gun is to kill or wound something...if you want to collect guns, they don't need to be funcional. maybe they should outlaw bullets or something.

[yeat182]

Originally posted by cal1082
i have no clue. I'd like to see though the percentage of guns used in murders that are legally owned guns.

if there were no guns, then there wouldn't be any murders by guns, whether they are legal or otherwise.

[yeat182]

Originally posted by cal1082
i'm all for getting the guns off the streets and out of hands of people who would use them on someone. On the other hand, if i want a gun and i go through all the legal matters and meet all the standards to recieve one i think i shoudl be able to get one.

i'm not trying to be a dick and try to rip every thing you say, i'm just throwing this out there to be discussed. that being said, if you get an abortion and go through all the legal matters and meet all the standards, shouldn't you be able to get one?

[yeat182]

Originally posted by cal1082
do you not think if guns were outlawed that there would not still be guns?

well, i assume if they were outlawed they'd be rounded up and destroyed, but if not then, yes there would still be a black market for guns, still, i'd have to think the number of guns would still be far, far smaller than they are now.

[yeat182]

Originally posted by cal1082
with that example no, because you would still be prohibiting someone from living with an abortion. Getting a gun legally doesnt take anyone life.

yeah, i can see that.

[yeat182]

Originally posted by cal1082
i agree the # of guns would be smaller, but would the # of guns be smaller in the hands of people who would actually kill someone with them? That's the main question.

yeah, i imagine it would, but we really have no way of knowing, i'm sure it would be related to other issues to, like whether or not we tighten our borders and stuff like that, because guns could easily be moved across the border from canada or mexico.

[yeat182]

Originally posted by cal1082
it's like pot. if i really want pot i just open my door and shout and i could basically have it. Guns might be harder to come by if they were illegal, but the fact would remain if you wanted a gun you could get it.

yeah that true, you can get pretty much whatever you want, be it legal or not. but then when you are caught with a gun, you are fucked, because no one is supposed to have them.

[Justin_stacy]

Originally posted by yeat182
guns are only meant for killing, be it man or animal, the bottom line is that the only purpose of a gun is to kill or wound something...if you want to collect guns, they don't need to be funcional. maybe they should outlaw bullets or something.

but you act like killing a human and an animal are equals, which there not.........what exactly is wrong with hunting for food?......

[yeat182]

why do you need a gun to hunt for food?

also, the constituition never mentions owning a gun to hunt for food.

[Justin_stacy]

Originally posted by yeat182
if there were no guns, then there wouldn't be any murders by guns, whether they are legal or otherwise.

http://reason.com/0211/fe.jm.gun.shtml

[yeat182]

Originally posted by cal1082
cause i'm not fast enough to catch them on foot with a knife. actually some people like to hunt.

many people hunt with bows, seems to work pretty well for them. and i understand that people like hunting, i have nothing against hunting. i'm just making the point that why should innocent people die, so a few people can keep their hobby? especially, when there are alternatives that will allow them to keep their hobby?

[Justin_stacy]

Originally posted by yeat182
why do you need a gun to hunt for food?

also, the constituition never mentions owning a gun to hunt for food.

but what is wrong with having a gun for hunting food?

and where does it (the constitution) say that people dont have a right to own weapons?

[yeat182]

Originally posted by Justin_stacy
http://reason.com/0211/fe.jm.gun.shtml


"Except for murder and rape, it admitted, "Britain has overtaken the US for all major crimes"..."

[Justin_stacy]

Originally posted by yeat182
many people hunt with bows, seems to work pretty well for them. and i understand that people like hunting, i have nothing against hunting. i'm just making the point that why should innocent people die, so a few people can keep their hobby? especially, when there are alternatives that will allow them to keep their hobby?

bows are just as deadly as a gun.............

[Justin_stacy]

Originally posted by yeat182
"Except for murder and rape, it admitted, "Britain has overtaken the US for all major crimes"..."

yes but you read on, it says the US murder and rape crimes have been going down, while english ones have been going up or staying the same............and more people are efffected by the other forms of crimes..............

[yeat182]

Originally posted by Justin_stacy
but what is wrong with having a gun for hunting food?

and where does it (the constitution) say that people dont have a right to own weapons?

specifically the constitution says that a well regulated millitia has the right to own guns, not private citizens, but that is a whole other debate. and i personally think that owning a gun for hunting is fine, but there is no need for semi-automatic weapons, or hand guns. if you limit gun ownership to only rifles, i think that would be much better. but you're starting to drift from my original point, which was the contridicitons between pro-lifers and gun owners.

[yeat182]

Originally posted by Justin_stacy
yes but you read on, it says the US murder and rape crimes have been going down, while english ones have been going up or staying the same............and more people are efffected by the other forms of crimes..............

yes, but guns are used for murders, of which, we have more...they have no guns, and less murders.

[yeat182]

Originally posted by cal1082
i can agree witht the semi automatic weapons, unless you like collecting guns. Maybe they could have a collectors liscense, that way you pay a lot to get a lisecense and you know who owns the guns. I still think it goes without saying though there will still be semi automatic weapons out there no matter what.

You're original point only holds true if the person has the gun just to kill a person. And those percentages are small.

i think that is a good idea, because the number of actual collectors is still probably a small percentage of gun owners, and that way it would be easy to keep track of who owns what.

but, other than hunting and collecting, what other reason is there to own a gun? and before you say self defense, there are a hundred other ways that are just as effective to defend yourself.

[Justin_stacy]

Originally posted by yeat182
specifically the constitution says that a well regulated millitia has the right to own guns, not private citizens, but that is a whole other debate. and i personally think that owning a gun for hunting is fine, but there is no need for semi-automatic weapons, or hand guns. if you limit gun ownership to only rifles, i think that would be much better. but you're starting to drift from my original point, which was the contridicitons between pro-lifers and gun owners.

well that depends on how you define a milita................but i agree with you that guns, not related to hunting/sport, could be outlawed, but then crime would rise so "we the people" would have to be willing ot live with this to save a few lives............and i didn't really change the topic, i just didn't understand how you could compare an animals life with that of a humans..........

[Justin_stacy]

Originally posted by yeat182
yes, but guns are used for murders, of which, we have more...they have no guns, and less murders.

but there'd be more crime.........and murders wouldn't go down all that much...........

Originally posted by yeat182
are a hundred other ways that are just as effective to defend yourself.

not against a criminal with a gun (who would still have them if they are taken away from the public).........and not for a woman........

[yeat182]

Originally posted by Justin_stacy
but there'd be more crime.........and murders wouldn't go down all that much...........



not against a criminal with a gun (who would still have them if they are taken away from the public).........and not for a woman........


there is no garuntee that the criminal will have a gun, do the all the criminals in england have guns?

[Ronin]

Originally posted by Justin_stacy
where do you live? the government, based on public opinion, makes many laws that effect "personal" chioce.....smoking age, drug laws, marriage age, working age requirements, school attendence......ect.........

These all have impacts on society as well as the individual. Second hand smoke is unhealthy, drugs alter consciousness and hence can endanger the lives of people around the user. As for marriage and and school attendance, these are laws put into effect because the government has a parens patriae duty, the duty to protect those who cannot make informed decisions. While some people might be able to make an informed decision at a young age, I wouldn't trust many 14 year olds to decide whether or not they should be in school, and whether or not they should be married. Abortion is a slightly different issue. How does it impact on our society? If a woman I know has an abortion, what is the impact on my life?

[yeat182]

Originally posted by Justin_stacy
well that depends on how you define a milita................but i agree with you that guns, not related to hunting/sport, could be outlawed, but then crime would rise so "we the people" would have to be willing ot live with this to save a few lives............and i didn't really change the topic, i just didn't understand how you could compare an animals life with that of a humans..........

there is no garuntee that crime would rise, that article about england never mentions the other socio-economic factors that probably had more to do with rising crime than outlawing guns did.

but, no i don't think an animals life is equal with a humans, i'm just saying that you don't need a gun to hunt.

[Ronin]

Originally posted by cal1082
it's like pot. if i really want pot i just open my door and shout and i could basically have it. Guns might be harder to come by if they were illegal, but the fact would remain if you wanted a gun you could get it.

Take into consideration accidental shooting deaths.

You're more likely to kill a family member with your gun than you are an intruder. And those guys are legal and registered.

Also consider the accessibility issue. There are many many deaths each year from children using guns that belong to their parents. These guns are also legal and registered.

I can't see many 40 year old accountants going out and picking up a gun on the black market if they were made illegal. The price would also SKYROCKET if they were made illegal, which means that it would be difficult to just come up with the cash to buy one.

[Ronin]

Originally posted by cal1082
i can agree witht the semi automatic weapons, unless you like collecting guns. Maybe they could have a collectors liscense, that way you pay a lot to get a lisecense and you know who owns the guns. I still think it goes without saying though there will still be semi automatic weapons out there no matter what.

You're original point only holds true if the person has the gun just to kill a person. And those percentages are small.


See above post

[Justin_stacy]

Originally posted by yeat182
there is no garuntee that crime would rise, that article about england never mentions the other socio-economic factors that probably had more to do with rising crime than outlawing guns did.

but, no i don't think an animals life is equal with a humans, i'm just saying that you don't need a gun to hunt.

and yes economic factors were probably an issuse, but i think a person inability to protect themselves was a bigger issue......but point taken......

and im glad we can at least agree on the animal thing..........

[Justin_stacy]

Originally posted by Ronin
These all have impacts on society as well as the individual. Second hand smoke is unhealthy, drugs alter consciousness and hence can endanger the lives of people around the user. As for marriage and and school attendance, these are laws put into effect because the government has a parens patriae duty, the duty to protect those who cannot make informed decisions. While some people might be able to make an informed decision at a young age, I wouldn't trust many 14 year olds to decide whether or not they should be in school, and whether or not they should be married. Abortion is a slightly different issue. How does it impact on our society? If a woman I know has an abortion, what is the impact on my life?

your point
Originally posted by Ronin

I can do that. As long as I keep it to myself.

smoking hurts no one if done by your self,
drugs hurt no one if done by your self,
school does not hurt anyone if you dont go,
marriage hurts no one when done,
.......abortion kills the life of TWO people, and doing so directly effects TWO people..........


And forceing the government to be a parent image, could also go into the abortion issue, Do you really think that a 16 to 18 year old can really cope with the issue of taking anothers life?

[yeat182]

Originally posted by Justin_stacy
your point


smoking hurts no one if done by your self,
drugs hurt no one if done by your self,
school does not hurt anyone if you dont go,
marriage hurts no one when done,
.......abortion kills the life of TWO people, and doing so directly effects TWO people..........


And forceing the government to be a parent image, could also go into the abortion issue, Do you really think that a 16 to 18 year old can really cope with the issue of taking anothers life?

drugs can hurt people even when you do them by yourself, if you get drunk by yourself, you can still go out and drive and kill someone. or you can do herion by yourself, but when you've got no money and need a fix, you might rob someone.
school hurts society if you don't go because you limit the number of jobs you will be qualified for and increase the likely hood that you will be on welfare, thus costing taxpayers.

also, how does abortion kill 2 people?

[Justin_stacy]

Originally posted by yeat182
dr

also, how does abortion kill 2 people?

a BABY is the life of TWO people, so inturn killing it, is killing the life that TWO people made.......so it is directly effecting more then just one person..........

[Ronin]

Originally posted by Justin_stacy
your point


smoking hurts no one if done by your self,
drugs hurt no one if done by your self,
school does not hurt anyone if you dont go,
marriage hurts no one when done,
.......abortion kills the life of TWO people, and doing so directly effects TWO people..........


And forceing the government to be a parent image, could also go into the abortion issue, Do you really think that a 16 to 18 year old can really cope with the issue of taking anothers life?

My point is that they have an impact on society, so the government has to regulate them. The government regulates abortion, but it can't tell you that you can't do it.

Smoking hurts people if you do it in public
Marijuana should be legalized (in my opinion), but the effects of other drugs are much more severe on our society. Heroin addiction drains our health care money, people seeking to "score" resort to crime. These are negative aspects of the phenomenon, and they affect everyone. My point is that ABORTION HAS NO IMPACT ON SOCIETY AS A WHOLE. It's not like crime rates go up with the legalization of abortions, or the risk of cancer goes up when you watch someone have an abotion. It's a personal choice.

I'm not forcing the government into a parental role, it's a legal distinction made in the Canadian courts (though I don't know about the American). Parens Patriae, check it out.

Can children as young as 16 have an abortion without parental consent? I'm fairly sure they can't here in Canada. If they CAN, then I agree that they aren't mature enough to make that decision for themself, but abortion is a little more sticky than marriage. With abortion, there is no option to maintain a normal life. You either have the child or have an abortion. Either way, you're going to have to deal with alot.

[Ronin]

Originally posted by Justin_stacy
a BABY is the life of TWO people, so inturn killing it, is killing the life that TWO people made.......so it is directly effecting more then just one person..........

You say this like it's an absolute truth, but it's not.

If you can give me a morally and scientifically acceptable definition of "life" that can be agreed upon by all parties, then you're a better man than all of the educatedpeople who have already tried.

I'm still confused about this BABY = TWO PEOPLE. You're always pretty reasonable, so maybe you could explain what you mean?

[BustaNutz]

Originally posted by Justin_stacy
a BABY is the life of TWO people, so inturn killing it, is killing the life that TWO people made.......so it is directly effecting more then just one person..........

Now give me a break, it's one person, if that;s your logic then killing someone in the electric chair is also killing two people.

[Justin_stacy]

Originally posted by Ronin

I'm still confused about this BABY = TWO PEOPLE. You're always pretty reasonable, so maybe you could explain what you mean?

it takes a MAN and WOMAN ot create a baby.......that is TWO PEOPLE......how does that confuse you?

[BustaNutz]

Originally posted by Justin_stacy
it takes a MAN and WOMAN ot create a baby.......that is TWO PEOPLE......how does that confuse you?

The baby is one person though, not two.

[Justin_stacy]

Originally posted by Ronin
You say this like it's an absolute truth, but it's not.

If you can give me a morally and scientifically acceptable definition of "life" that can be agreed upon by all parties, then you're a better man than all of the educatedpeople who have already tried.


all parties will never agree on anything, i can personally justify that you don't see it as a baby until it "pops" out, and thats fine.......i see it as a human when it is concieved.........no scientific definition will ever change either of our views.........

[Justin_stacy]

Originally posted by BustaNutz
The baby is one person though, not two.
never said it was.............you miss understood what i typed........

[Ronin]

Originally posted by Justin_stacy
it takes a MAN and WOMAN ot create a baby.......that is TWO PEOPLE......how does that confuse you?

You said abortion resulted in two deaths...

[yeat182]

Originally posted by Justin_stacy
bows are just as deadly as a gun.............

yes, but you can't carry a bow hidden in your pants...

[yeat182]

Originally posted by Justin_stacy
.......abortion kills the life of TWO people, and doing so directly effects TWO people..........



a fetus is at best 1 person...if that.

[Justin_stacy]

Originally posted by yeat182
yes, but you can't carry a bow hidden in your pants...

if your pants were baggy enough you might be able to......:)

[Justin_stacy]

Originally posted by yeat182
a fetus is at best 1 person...if that.

what i ment, and wish you could understand, is that a baby is the life that two people created, not one (ie from the life of TWO people, i wasn't saying that a baby counts as two lives, i just worded it bad on my part...........)

[yeat182]

Originally posted by Justin_stacy
what i ment, and wish you could understand, is that a baby is the life that two people created, not one (ie from the life of TWO people, i wasn't saying that a baby counts as two lives, i just worded it bad on my part...........)

alright, cool, i was confused, but i figured you just mis-worded it.