30 black teens attack 4 white girls in "non-bias" attack

[Jaycint]

Originally Posted by KittyDuran

Yes, you felt personally attacked - so you went on the attack. Two wrongs, perceived or not, do not make a right. If you felt that RF was calling you a racist, you should go to the moderators and report it. They would issue him a PM warning. But since you're new here you got a bye - if RF did the same he'd be banned. You're best bet was to keep debating your ideas and ignore what RF said especially if you didn't know what he was getting at - heck, I didn't know what he was getting at!!!

I did know what he was getting at. And so did he whether or not he would ever own up to it. Obviously RF and I come from different ends of the political spectrum (although I hardly think I'm coming from as far to the right as he thinks I am).

The one thing I will grant you is that it should have been handled in a PM. I should have contacted him that way to express my concerns over his comment.

Look at my posting history Kitty, I am NOT the type to get into flame wars with people. Heck I don't even come here to talk about stuff outside of baseball normally. Unfortunately I made the mistake of ever even clicking on this thread link and offering my opinion. I should have known better than to even let people know my opinion on the matter.

[Falls City Beer]

Originally Posted by Phoenix

This post really sums up why I'm opposed to "hate crimes". This "hate crime" legislation is on the books because some want additional punishment for what is thought to be the traditional racist crimes of majority upon minority. But by very definition then, the law treats the murder of innocent collateral bank robbery victims as lesser crimes. I can't buy into that. Tell that to a parent of a dead child who was not killed as a result of legislature-defined "hate". I want the death penalty for a racist pig who kills someone because they are a different color. And I want the death penalty for a bank robber who kills someone because they just happen to be standing in a teller line.

The law should busy itself with penalizing horrible actions not branching off into a whole new wing of law trying to get to motivations behind actions.

So you don't think pre-meditated murder (say, a guy who lays out every step of kidnapping, raping, and murdering a young girl) should be punished more severely than aggravated assault with a weapon or manslaughter? After all, they all result in death of a victim.

My point is not to mitigate murder, but to point out that motivation (no matter how you slice it) does and should affect sentencing. The first example above should never see the light of day again; while the 18 year old kid who gets pressured into a gang and shoots someone in a holdup should pay his debt to society (a severe debt), but should also have a chance to produce in society at a date some point down the road.

[KittyDuran]

Look at my posting history Kitty, I am NOT the type to get into flame wars with people. Heck I don't even come here to talk about stuff outside of baseball normally. Unfortunately I made the mistake of ever even clicking on this thread link and offering my opinion. I should have known better than to even let people know my opinion on the matter.

Your mistake was not offering your opinion, the mistake was confronting what you preceived as a threat. Opinions are transparent to those who don't share your POV. Posting history aside, all it takes is that one mistake - I know because I've made them on this side of the forum. Hopefully, it's a lesson learned - you are not going to change anyone's POV - so all you can do is debate and not attack [even if you think, or know you've been attacked wrongly]. I'm glad you understand the reporting and using the PM -that's the first step.

[Blimpie]

How many do we need to show? Did you hear about the one below? Or did the national media decide that it is not as important as say a "many-times convicted" person like Rodney King? Not that Mr. King deserved what he got (no, of course not). But I do know that King was not riding a city bus. I think he was fleeing from police thru residential streets at 90 mph. I think he was told be many officers to lay on the ground and he would not do it. Maybe police beating someone is more important to the media and people? I see it all as a human beating a human. Those cops were not charged with hate crimes, but we sure as hell heard that term when described by the media and people who defended Mr. King (the man with the rap sheet a mile long). Think racial hatred and violence does not work both ways? If so, then I doubt that anyone or anything will be able to convince you otherwise.

It should be obvious to everyone that ALL media is biased to some extent. The only thing that differs is the direction and the extent of their "leanings."

What many people fail to realize is that there was much more of the Rodney King video tape filmed than what normally aired on your local nightly news. It was not until the trial occurred that many people were able to witness the FULL video tape. If you viewed the entire tape unedited, you could see how truly hostile and violent King actually was prior to he being pounced upon. While on PCP mind you, King refused all commands to exit his vehicle. Once he was removed, he took several swings at officers. Even after being pepper sprayed and TASERed, he managed to break his restraints. After about a two minute struggle, he attempted to grab either an officer's baton or his firearm (depending upon which video tape expert you believe). It is at this point in the incident that most TV stations would begin their King tape segment. Of course, this is also the part where the most severe beatings by the officers occured. Some argued that King was not attempting anything malicious by "grabbing for" the officer's baton/firearm. My guess is that there are several bailiffs working in an Atlanta courthouse today that would feel entirely different if placed in the same situation.

News producers would argue that, in the interest of time, they could not air the entire footage on a nightly basis. However, don't they have a responsibility to report all of the facts? If they are basically letting the tape roll and allowing the viewers to draw their own conclusions, shouldn't they have aired the entire amount of tape they had in their possesion? Everyone--especially news producers--has their own personal agenda. When considering the media, we all need to realize this and filter out the appropriate amount of propaganda and bias that was contributed by all those involved.

[Jaycint]

Hopefully, it's a lesson learned - you are not going to change anyone's POV - so all you can do is debate and not attack [even if you think, or know you've been attacked wrongly]. I'm glad you understand the reporting and using the PM -that's the first step.

I've never functioned under the crazy idea that I could change someone's opinion, especially on such a hot button topic as the one being discussed in this thread. I tried quite simply to state my side of it. Yes RF got under my skin a little bit and I felt like he baited me. I should have let it go and not even responded to it. I admitted as much.

I understand what you are trying to do here Kitty and I appreciate it but please explain the "that's the first step" comment. First step to what? I am not a bad poster or the type of poster that would typically incite an argument. Just because I am fairly new here doesn't mean I am a child in terms of posting on message boards. I feel I'm fairly well spoken and formulate my thoughts and opinions quite well. No need to scold me like a child.

[Mutaman]

Lets sum up:
1. Jaycint seems like a nice enough guy.
2. Rredsfaithful seems like a nice enough guy (and I like his politics).
3. Many whites are biased against people of color and some commit hate crimes.
4. Many people of color are biased against whites and some commit hate crimes.

The issue is: Does the media emphasize fact number 3 and downplay fact number 4?
Not in the media I watch ie- the New York tabloids.

5. Do Rush and Druge ect ect constantly assert that the media is biased against whites and religious people and the rest of the not so silent majority ? You betcha. Its to distract you all from the stuff that really matters.

[Jaycint]

Originally Posted by Mutaman

Lets sum up:
1. Jaycint seems like a nice enough guy.
2. Rredsfaithful seems like a nice enough guy (and I like his politics).
3. Many whites are biased against people of color and some commit hate crimes.
4. Many people of color are biased against whites and some commit hate crimes.

The issue is: Does the media emphasize fact number 3 and downplay fact number 4?
Not in the media I watch ie- the New York tabloids.

5. Do Rush and Druge ect ect constantly assert that the media is biased against whites and religious people and the rest of the not so silent majority ? You betcha. Its to distract you all from the stuff that really matters.

1. Totally agree, he's a really nice guy!

2. Would agree with this also, just because RF and I don't see eye to eye on this doesn't mean we can't agree on anything else. I would say with almost certainty he's a nice guy also. (although it sounds like our politics don't match )

3. Agreed

4. Agreed

The issue: This is the only place where our opinions part paths. I can't speak to the New York tabloids specifically since I don't read them, I take you on your word that they are fair and even handed in their coverage of crimes like this. I'm speaking more of the national media, network 6:00 world news types of programs. In the instance of those programs I feel like the coverage is slanted somewhat.

5. Agreed on Rush and Drudge. However for every Rush and Drudge I would offer up a Bill Maher or Jerry Springer on the opposite end of the politcal spectrum. They are just as guilty in my opinion of "propagandizing" for their political interests as are the Rushes and Drudges of the world.


Summation: I think I have pretty well gotten across my feelings on the matter as have the other guys involved. Can we just let this one drift off into the sunset now fellas?

[Redsfaithful]

However for every Rush and Drudge I would offer up a Bill Maher or Jerry Springer on the opposite end of the politcal spectrum.

Bill Maher and Jerry Springer probably don't have a tenth of the reach that Rush and Drudge have.

I have no idea why dominant groups feel the need to take on a persecuted air, but it's really kind of ridiculous. Christians and whites seem especially fond of this tactic. I think it helps some people avoid feeling bad for being part of the majority that oppresses minorities.

Can we just let this one drift off into the sunset now fellas?

Sure, I just had more to say.

[Jaycint]

Originally Posted by Redsfaithful

Bill Maher and Jerry Springer probably don't have a tenth of the reach that Rush and Drudge have.

I have no idea why dominant groups feel the need to take on a persecuted air, but it's really kind of ridiculous. Christians and whites seem especially fond of this tactic. I think it helps some people avoid feeling bad for being part of the majority that oppresses minorities.



Sure, I just had more to say.

Couldn't disagree more with this whole post but you win RF, you got the last word. Congrats.