Stop! Thief!!

Posted by: webroach

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 23/11/2006 04:21

First of all, Jim, I don't know what people do in comic books. Not a fan.

Quote:
That cop *almost* had that perp in his grip when the Crown Vic's rev limiter kicked in. He has to go home and face his family. What does he tell them?

He tells them that, unlike a majority of people out there, he tried, rather than just shrugging his shoulders and saying "not my problem, not worth the risk."

A poor showing, Jim, and you're being disingenuous. The key issue in my comments was the difference between trying to do something and simply doing nothing. To try to use the ban on high speed chases as an argument against that is logically flawed, and you know it. The cops try, but they have limits. They don't, however, simply say "meh, we might get hurt if we chase that bad guy. I'd rather just go home tonight."

Posted by: loren

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 23/11/2006 04:21

Congratulations, you aren't a big talker. Like I said, I completely agree with the sentiment. You can call us all pussies if you want, which is exactly what you are doing, but I'm not a movie hero, and I can guarantee you that when faced with the choice of my life or saving a Walgreens from losing a $15 hair trimmer, you can bet your ass I'll chose not risking my life. And I think that what has changed is exactly that... the risk of losing life. If no one was walking around with a gun and all I might suffer is a broken nose or fist, then it's a whole other ballgame. I am guessing that you will take that as another "excuse" but it's a reality that a lot of us live in and see on a daily basis in big cities. It's not all black and white cut and dry, and if you play it that way you set yourself up for disaster and over-reaction. In my neighborhood, if I yelled at the thug at the bus-stop for dropping paper on the ground, I'd get beat the fcuk up, plain and simple. I've seen it happen. And I promise you, I would be beat down because A: I ain't a fighter... B: 5 teenage thugs will against my skinny ass isn't even a fight.

But, I'm guessing there's a deeper gut thing at the root of this argument. Maybe you are the type of person who'd run to the front lines to do battle wherever and why ever your government tells you, whereas I'd be a draft dodger.

Here's to idealism though... I wish we could all be as ballsy as you, because you are probably right. If we all did something in those situations, those situations would happen a lot less often. But in the end most of us just want to go home to our girlfriends/wives/wii and live to see another sunrise.

PS - I'd like to hear the story behind the stitches... unless you've posted it before.

Posted by: webroach

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 23/11/2006 04:41

Quote:
Congratulations, you aren't a big talker. Like I said, I completely agree with the sentiment. You can call us all pussies if you want, which is exactly what you are doing, but I'm not a movie hero, and I can guarantee you that when faced with the choice of my life or saving a Walgreens from losing a $15 hair trimmer, you can bet your ass I'll chose not risking my life. And I think that what has changed is exactly that... the risk of losing life. If no one was walking around with a gun and all I might suffer is a broken nose or fist, then it's a whole other ballgame. I am guessing that you will take that as another "excuse" but it's a reality that a lot of us live in and see on a daily basis in big cities. It's not all black and white cut and dry, and if you play it that way you set yourself up for disaster and over-reaction. In my neighborhood, if I yelled at the thug at the bus-stop for dropping paper on the ground, I'd get beat the fcuk up, plain and simple. I've seen it happen. And I promise you, I would be beat down because A: I ain't a fighter... B: 5 teenage thugs will against my skinny ass isn't even a fight.

<sigh> So much to cover here. First, it isn't a matter of protecting Walmart from losing a hair trimmer. It's about expecting more from ourselves. It about doing the right thing, even if there is a risk. Second, I live in Denver, in the city, not the suburbs. I used to live in Columbus, Georgia, and I'm originally from the Syracuse area of NY. So I understand what you're talking about. But it doesn't matter. The point remains the same. I am a bit of a fighter (actually, it's more that I have a decent pain tolerance and I'm stubborn

) And hey, I've gotten my ass kicked before (once nearly to death... come to Denver and my friends and I can spin the tale for you over a beer), but again, it doesn't matter. You have to do what's right, Loren.

Quote:
But, I'm guessing there's a deeper gut thing at the root of this argument. Maybe you are the type of person who'd run to the front lines to do battle wherever and why ever your government tells you, whereas I'd be a draft dodger.

Loren.... you should (based on what I've had to say about politics on the board) that that is ridiculous. My roommate is still laughing from reading that line. Soooooo not how I'm wired. I would be there in Canada drinking a beer with you and Mark, unless I agreed with the war. (Hint: I don't.)

Quote:
Here's to idealism though... I wish we could all be as ballsy as you, because you are probably right. If we all did something in those situations, those situations would happen a lot less often. But in the end most of us just want to go home to our girlfriends/wives/wii and live to see another sunrise.

It's not idealism unless you don't practice it. And it has nothing to do with being ballsy. Hell, sometimes I scare the hell out of myself, but I have to try to do what's right.

Quote:
PS - I'd like to hear the story behind the stitches... unless you've posted it before.

Which ones?

The one on my hand is from getting stabbed by a skinhead when I was 16 (they tend to dislike arguments that require heavy mental processing

), and I've got one on my right arm (nearly gone now) from scraping against some sheet metal while my friend Don and I were chasing down a guy who stole the tip jar from the coffeeshop we hang out at a few years ago.

Loren, I'm not calling any one a pussy for being scared. Being scared is a natural human response. Hell, that's why we have the amygdala (the Almond of AHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!) I'm just taking issue with the back slapping "you did the right thing" party. It's not the right thing.

Posted by: jimhogan

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 23/11/2006 04:42

Quote:
First of all, Jim, I don't know what people do in comic books. Not a fan.

Boy, oh, boy. You *are* ticked off. I haven't been a fan of comic books since about 1964, but I know who Peter Parker is..

Quote:
Quote:
That cop *almost* had that perp in his grip when the Crown Vic's rev limiter kicked in. He has to go home and face his family. What does he tell them?

He tells them that, unlike a majority of people out there, he tried, rather than just shrugging his shoulders and saying "not my problem, not worth the risk."

I am not imagining, nor hoping, that folks generally say "not my problem, not worth the risk". One thought that occurred to me: Dang, I tripped that guy and he turned out to be a cop!

It just seems that you are a bit on fire over this. So much so that I could imagine that you voted for Republicans and the Tums haven't kicked in yet.

Quote:
A poor showing, Jim, and you're being disingenuous. The key issue in my comments was the difference between trying to do something and simply doing nothing. To try to use the ban on high speed chases as an argument against that is logically flawed, and you know it. The cops try, but they have limits. They don't, however, simply say "meh, we might get hurt if we chase that bad guy. I'd rather just go home tonight."

I would liike to think that I don't aspire to disingenuity (sp?) but am perhaps afflicted with stupidity or bourbon. Poor showing? I leave you to judge. Again, I am not completely prepared to judge the worth of my fellow citizens' efforts to stop that shoplifter.

I have had my nose broken in the name of law and order and I would like to think that I would always step forward in the defense of right, but I have also managed to get into situations where right and wrong weren't quite as obvious. Maybe that is all I am trying to say. A little slack..

Posted by: webroach

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 23/11/2006 04:46

Quote:
It just seems that you are a bit on fire over this. So much so that I could imagine that you voted for Republicans and the Tums haven't kicked in yet.

Heh. Second time in less that 30 minutes that someone has suggested I'm a pro-gob'ment person or a Republican sympathizer just because I don't believe in burying my head in the sand and watching bad things happen. So tell me, what part of the Republican agenda does my desire to do the right thing align with?

As far as I can tell, they haven't been concerned with doing the right thing for quite some time.

Posted by: jbauer

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 23/11/2006 04:51

Quote:
I think the saddest thing about all of this is that, for once, Billy is absolutely right and I agree with him 100%. Everyone who advocates doing nothing should be ashamed of themselves. Moreover, they should never again lament the state of a world they're helping to create.

No wonder we have so much crime in America.

Kudos to Ladmo, Mark, Visuvius, and Boxer for knowing the difference between right and wrong, and more importantly, between civic duty and cowardice. Being scared of retaliation doesn't excuse you from your responsibility to your fellow man.

Flame all you want, but this is pathetic.

Really interesting. I believe I DO know the difference between right and wrong - but wait a sec...

1) Am I really supposed to tackle a dude because it appears that he's guilty? Am I now judge and jury? Ok, that sounds like an excuse, but wouldn't I be committing assault? Another excuse? If some guy tackled ME in a parking lot and I was innocent of whatever crime they THINK I may have caused, I'd press charges and maybe sue that dip-shit.

2) You guys ever see the movie "Regarding Henry" with Harrison Ford? He goes out for some groceries or something and gets shot by a freak in a convenience store. Brain damage and stuff. That crap HAPPENS. You guys wouldn't find out about my brain dead-ness, unless someone here read it in the paper and figured out that it was me... (unlikely) I prefer to be sitting here writing this witty stuff...

3) This BS incident in a parking lot is not a battle of good and evil. This is not The Lord Of the Rings or Germany vs. England in WWII. This is some punk (probably armed) running from a shopkeeper and a keystone cop! Do I really lack principles by not sticking my neck out for that situation?

4) My favorite part of this thread is where Loren included the Wii in the list of significant others. In my case, he should have said "360."

- Jon

Posted by: jimhogan

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 23/11/2006 04:53

Quote:
Quote:
It just seems that you are a bit on fire over this. So much so that I could imagine that you voted for Republicans and the Tums haven't kicked in yet.

Heh. Second time in less that 30 minutes that someone has suggested I'm a pro-gob'ment person or a Republican sympathizer just because I don't believe in burying my head in the sand and watching bad things happen. So tell me, what part of the Republican agenda does my desire to do the right thing align with?

As far as I can tell, they haven't been concerned with doing the right thing for quite some time.

"I could imagine". Simply a sense of absolutist, Repub-style black-and-white versus the despised moral relativist "shades of grey'".

But your rmileage may vary!

Posted by: webroach

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 23/11/2006 04:58

Quote:
3) This BS incident in a parking lot is not a battle of good and evil. This is not The Lord Of the Rings or Germany vs. England in WWII. This is some punk (probably armed) running from a shopkeeper and a keystone cop! Do I really lack principles by not sticking my neck out for that situation?

Yes, you do in my opinion.

And how is it the punk is "probably" armed? Because he stole clippers? Because he was a man? Because he was in his "maybe early 20s"? Wait, is it because he was thin? Or was it the sweatshirt that increased the likelihood of being armed? The fact that he was running? Or was it that he was African American?

You have no good reason to assume he was armed. Any more than he had to assume you weren't.

Posted by: jimhogan

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 23/11/2006 05:00

Quote:
4) My favorite part of this thread is where Loren included the Wii in the list of significant others. In my case, he should have said "360."

I am not sure what the Empeg BBS Oscar award is, but you just got my vote. Or should Loren get my vote? Hmmmm. Lifetime achievment award for teh both of youi?

Posted by: jbauer

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 23/11/2006 05:01

Quote:
Quote:
3) This BS incident in a parking lot is not a battle of good and evil. This is not The Lord Of the Rings or Germany vs. England in WWII. This is some punk (probably armed) running from a shopkeeper and a keystone cop! Do I really lack principles by not sticking my neck out for that situation?

Yes, you do in my opinion.

And how is it the punk is "probably" armed? Because he stole clippers? Because he was a man? Because he was in his "maybe early 20s"? Wait, is it because he was thin? Or was it the sweatshirt that increased the likelihood of being armed? The fact that he was running? Or was it that he was African American?

You have no good reason to assume he was armed. Any more than he had to assume you weren't.

In the US, you should assume that EVERYONE is armed. Self preservation. It sounds like you have been lucky to have only gotten minor injuries for the trouble you've gotten yourself into. If one of those people that you tangled with WERE armed, you might not be arguing right now! Would you have been right? Maybe - but also dead.

- Jon

P.S. Found this on http://www.trivia-library.com/b/origins-of-sayings-live-to-fight-another-day.htm

The Saying: HE WHO FIGHTS AND RUNS AWAY WILL LIVE TO FIGHT ANOTHER DAY.

Who Said It: Demosthenes

When: 338 B.C.

The Story behind It: In August of 338 B.C., the Athenian orator and statesman Demosthenes was an infantryman at Chaeronea, where a great battle took place between the Athenians and the Macedonians. The Macedonians were victorious, and 3,000 Athenians died. Demosthenes fled from the battlefield and was subsequently censured because of his desertion. To anyone who later called him a coward, Demosthenes retorted, "The man who runs away may fight again." From that line is derived the modern day version "He who fights and runs away will live to fight another day."

Posted by: webroach

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 23/11/2006 05:06

Quote:
"I could imagine". Simply a sense of absolutist, Repub-style black-and-white versus the despised moral relativist "shades of grey'".

But your rmileage may vary!

I know, I know, "I could imagine" is a great way to say it and not be held to it.

The difference, Jim, is that I'm not trying to push my morals. I'm simply asking people to be true to theirs. If you don't think there's anything wrong with letting criminals go, then fine; we'd disagree, but that's it. But nearly everyone has made it (at least to me) clear that while they know it isn't necc. the right thing, it's better to not get involved. I think that's crap. And I think it's that kind of thinking that's seriously harming the country. Because people who think like that help crime go unpunished. And they help elect shit presidents by not organizing and doing everything in their power to get someone worthy in office. And then they whine about it. They care more about their shiny new video game system than they do about their civic responsibility. And that, Jim, is sad.

And we wonder how the wool is being pulled over our eyes.

Nobody is pulling it over our eyes... we're putting the bag on ourself.

Posted by: jimhogan

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 23/11/2006 05:11

I think that maybe you are talking to a different Jim. A Jim I am not familiar with.

Peace out.

Posted by: jbauer

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 23/11/2006 05:13

Quote:
Quote:
"I could imagine". Simply a sense of absolutist, Repub-style black-and-white versus the despised moral relativist "shades of grey'".

But your rmileage may vary!

I know, I know, "I could imagine" is a great way to say it and not be held to it.

The difference, Jim, is that I'm not trying to push my morals. I'm simply asking people to be true to theirs. If you don't think there's anything wrong with letting criminals go, then fine; we'd disagree, but that's it. But nearly everyone has made it (at least to me) clear that while they know it isn't necc. the right thing, it's better to not get involved. I think that's crap. And I think it's that kind of thinking that's seriously harming the country. Because people who think like that help crime go unpunished. And they help elect shit presidents by not organizing and doing everything in their power to get someone worthy in office. And then they whine about it. They care more about their shiny new video game system than they do about their civic responsibility. And that, Jim, is sad.

And we wonder how the wool is being pulled over our eyes.

Nobody is pulling it over our eyes... we're putting the bag on ourself.

I love this. I agree with you for the most part, actually. Why am I laughing out loud? Because I would NEVER have predicted that I would act (or not act, in this case) the way I did in this situation!

It's so easy to say what you'd do, it's another to hurl yourself at a stranger. I actually had 10 seconds, enough time to make a real brain influenced decision, and I'm really glad I didn't do anything. I know that I sound like a pansy to you. Maybe in the same situation, you'd act differently. More power to ya - good luck - hope your actions are successful, honestly!

I believe that I'd put myself in harms way in the RIGHT situation - a war that I truly believed in, a woman getting raped, to defend a friend - or myself, etc. This situation, however, didn't motivate me that way...

True to your morals? I dunno, I think it's pushing it to say that in a situation like the one I was in...

- Jon

Posted by: webroach

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 23/11/2006 05:16

Quote:
In the US, you should assume that EVERYONE is armed. Self preservation. It sounds like you have been lucky to have only gotten minor injuries for the trouble you've gotten yourself into. If one of those people that you tangled with WERE armed, you might not be arguing right now! Would you have been right? Maybe - but also dead.

Look, I've had guns in my face. It happens, it's a sphincter-clenching experience, and yes, I've been really damn lucky that I'm still breathing, but Jon, it still comes down to the fact that I'm not gonna back down from what I believe because it gets dangerous. I'm just not wired that way.

Quote:

P.S. Found this on http://www.trivia-library.com/b/origins-of-sayings-live-to-fight-another-day.htm

The Saying: HE WHO FIGHTS AND RUNS AWAY WILL LIVE TO FIGHT ANOTHER DAY.

Who Said It: Demosthenes

When: 338 B.C.

The Story behind It: In August of 338 B.C., the Athenian orator and statesman Demosthenes was an infantryman at Chaeronea, where a great battle took place between the Athenians and the Macedonians. The Macedonians were victorious, and 3,000 Athenians died. Demosthenes fled from the battlefield and was subsequently censured because of his desertion. To anyone who later called him a coward, Demosthenes retorted, "The man who runs away may fight again." From that line is derived the modern day version "He who fights and runs away will live to fight another day."

Really...what else would he say? Carry that sentiment out to its ultimate conclusion. When does the day to actually stand up and fight finally come? After all the running?

I tend to have more respect (ok, awe) for the Dienekes at Thermopylae. He stood his ground and fought for what was right. I'd rather have him as someone to look up to than someone who figured out how to spin running away.

Posted by: loren

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 23/11/2006 05:17

Quote:
<sigh> So much to cover here. First, it isn't a matter of protecting Walmart from losing a hair trimmer. It's about expecting more from ourselves. It about doing the right thing, even if there is a risk.

I guess my point is that it isn't that black and white. You can say it is but it isn't for most people. Most people will chose their family over stopping the $15 thief if there's a chance of losing life or limb. I agree man, it IS about expecting more from ourselves, but when you say cut and dry that if you didn't do something you are somehow instantly a coward is pushing it. There's not doing something because you just plain don't give a crap if the guy gets away with it or doesn't, and there's not doing something because the risk involved to yourself out weighs the benefit to society in stopping the guy. And weighing that risk is every persons decision to make. For you it's obviously easy, you've been in fights, you can probably handle yourself, with that comes confidence. For someone who hasn't, then that line is in a completely different place no matter how much good they WANT or BELIEVE they should do. When it's futile it's futile.

Quote:
Second, I live in Denver, in the city, not the suburbs. I used to live in Columbus, Georgia, and I'm originally from the Syracuse area of NY. So I understand what you're talking about. But it doesn't matter. The point remains the same... but again, it doesn't matter. You have to do what's right, Loren.

And again I say it's not that cut and dry for most people and not because of lack of will. No doubt all of us WANT to do what's right. In any situation where you can do something that's "right", then agreed, you should.

Quote:
Loren.... you should (based on what I've had to say about politics on the board) that that is ridiculous. My roommate is still laughing from reading that line. Soooooo not how I'm wired. I would be there in Canada drinking a beer with you and Mark, unless I agreed with the war. (Hint: I don't.)

I wasn't speaking specifically to the current "war" at all, it just occurred to me that your argument sounded along the vein of an idealistic soldier. I didn't mean to reference either end of the political spectrum either. This point could easily spin off into another huge topic so I'll just skip it and concede the point.

Quote:
It's not idealism unless you don't practice it. And it has nothing to do with being ballsy. Hell, sometimes I scare the hell out of myself, but I have to try to do what's right.

So your saying it's a good idea to do incredibly risky things just under the guise of doing right? We could play a logic game of taking that to it's extreme but I doubt you'd agree with it at it's limits, which is why I call it idealistic. You can't say you'd throw yourself in front of a gun to prevent a thug from stealing a pack of gum. That is idealism. Everything in between has everything to do with being ballsy. It has to do with your personal level and ABILITY to actually affect the situation.

Quote:
Loren, I'm not calling any one a pussy for being scared. Being scared is a natural human response. Hell, that's why we have the amygdala (the Almond of AHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!) I'm just taking issue with the back slapping "you did the right thing" party. It's not the right thing.

I see your point. It just irks me when someone makes black and white arguments out of something that clearly isn't. In this particular situation, if you think Jon should have done something, then that's all you have to say. But using this as an example of how everyone should ALWAYS do something when they see a wrong isn't reality, despite how much we'd all like it to be.

Posted by: webroach

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 23/11/2006 05:20

Quote:
I know that I sound like a pansy to you. Maybe in the same situation, you'd act differently. More power to ya - good luck - hope your actions are successful, honestly!

Jon, I don't think you sound like a "pansy" (can't help but laugh at that word) at all.

The best lesson I was ever taught was that courage had nothing to do with not being afraid.

Posted by: webroach

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 23/11/2006 05:24

Quote:
I see your point. It just irks me when someone makes black and white arguments out of something that clearly isn't. In this particular situation, if you think Jon should have done something, then that's all you have to say. But using this as an example of how everyone should ALWAYS do something when they see a wrong isn't reality, despite how much we'd all like it to be.

I think Jon should have done something.

I think it is that black and white.

I think people should always stand up and say / do something when they see a wrong.

That's the reality I try to live by.

Posted by: jbauer

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 23/11/2006 05:28

Quote:
I think Jon should have done something.

I think it is that black and white.

I think people should always stand up and say / do something when they see a wrong.

That's the reality I try to live by.

I respect what you are saying, but I think it's more idealistic than realistic. If you lived by those words in San Francisco, you wouldn't last too long...

- Jon

Posted by: loren

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 23/11/2006 05:28

Quote:
That's the reality I try to live by.

So, in the end, I think it's fair to say we all TRY to live that way, but everyone draws the line at widely varying points on the line for many many reasons. And it's fair to argue that society's line is waining.

Posted by: matthew_k

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 23/11/2006 05:33

Quote:
I think that maybe you are talking to a different Jim. A Jim I am not familiar with.

Jim, I've missed you on the BBS, please come by and keep me entertained more often. Also, if you're ever in the bay area I'd like to buy you a drink.

On the issue at hand, I've got to admit at first I thought Jon should have stopped him, but in thinking about it more I've certainly come around. If you've lived in any sort of urban environment, you know to not get involved in other peoples disputes. If he had been hurting someone who couldn't defend themselves, sure, get involved, but if it's a matter of property, it's not worth putting yourself in harms way. Let the professionals who are trained and properly equipped deal with it.

Matthew

Posted by: Robotic

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 23/11/2006 07:51

Quote:
If you've lived in any sort of urban environment, you know to not get involved in other peoples disputes.

Moreover, you know not to initiate disputes... especially where they are not warranted.

How effective is the lesson of ranting at a litterbug?
It puts them on the defensive- difficult to teach them anything then.
Why not smile, say "Oh- that'll go right here", and pick it up without further communication and put it in the trash bin?

It's not my job to teach others how I want them to behave in my society. Even if it is, the best method is certainly not direct, abusive confrontation.

There's a chip and a shoulder around here somewhere...

Couldn't Jon have whipped out a camera and gathered evidence for the police? What if we all had that idea pop into our heads instead of 'I'm gonna give that turd what he deserves!!'?

Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 23/11/2006 10:13

Quote:
The Saying: HE WHO FIGHTS AND RUNS AWAY WILL LIVE TO FIGHT ANOTHER DAY.

Who cares what some greek fag said. Red, white, and blue: these colors don't run!

I'm not going to call you a coward for not stepping up and doing something. It's easy to talk big until you're actually there risking your neck. If the guy was 300 lb, I wouldn't have tackled him either. But I would have done what I could have in order to bring him to justice, and I know that that's what you wanted to do.

But what's really sad are these statements:

"Job well done!"
"You did the right thing!"
"Kudos for not trying to do what's right."
"You get extra karma points!"

That's bullshit, and it's the result of 25 years of indoctrination by the likes of Oprah. We are not women. We're fucking men. And we should stand up for what's right. Saying something like that is nothing but cowardice.

If it weren't for this cowardly attitude, three more flights would have gone down into empty fields on 9/11, instead of into their intended targets. Never again will that happen.

We are not little girls that run and hide. You are men. Take control of your surroundings and always do what's right. Afraid of retaliation? Imagine being in western Europe in 1940. Would you have stood up for what's right, or would you have taken the easy route, turn a blind eye, and let the Nazis have their way?

You may suffer injury for doing the right thing, but the alternative is worse. Because the alternative is to be ruled by evil.

Posted by: peter

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 23/11/2006 11:17

Quote:
If it weren't for this cowardly attitude, three more flights would have gone down into empty fields on 9/11, instead of into their intended targets.

IMO that's a bit unfair to the passengers of the other planes. It's hard to remember now, but before that day the idea of using hijacked planes as missiles wasn't really in the mind of the public. The passengers on the three successful strikes probably never realised that their own planes would be used as missiles, let alone that a salvo of strikes was intended. The only reason that the United 93 passengers knew that, and could realise that fighting back was a good idea, is that the United 93 terrorists "bottled it" and were half-an-hour later hijacking their flight than the other groups.

Fighting back would be a lose/lose strategy in a "traditional" hijack -- the sort everyone thought they were dealing with until about 9am -- where the hijackers view the passengers as valuable hostages, and have every intention of landing the plane safely, if elsewhere than intended.

Peter

Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 23/11/2006 11:36

Quote:
IMO that's a bit unfair to the passengers of the other planes. It's hard to remember now, but before that day the idea of using hijacked planes as missiles wasn't really in the mind of the public.

Point taken. I was trying to refer to the attitude of "give the bad guy what he wants". This has been the standard advice from "experts" in the US for years, for situations ranging from hijackings, to robberies, to kidnappings.

Posted by: gbeer

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 23/11/2006 14:59

After reading the recent posts. I feel the need to point out that most business have personnel policies that require employees not to force confrontations and just give up whatever is requested.

It's a fine balancing act to be sure. Value of the item stolen vs. potential harm to employees and customers vs. immediate or delayed (maybe never) apprehension.

The US has had times when immediate meting out of discipline has been the norm. In it's worst form it was called vigilantism.

Where we are now seems to be balanced between extremes.

Posted by: webroach

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 23/11/2006 22:22

Quote:
Quote:
If you've lived in any sort of urban environment, you know to not get involved in other peoples disputes.

Moreover, you know not to initiate disputes... especially where they are not warranted.

How effective is the lesson of ranting at a litterbug?
It puts them on the defensive- difficult to teach them anything then.
Why not smile, say "Oh- that'll go right here", and pick it up without further communication and put it in the trash bin?

So your solution is to act snide and then be a happy, acquiescent little maid? Brilliant. Much better than directly confronting the problem.

Quote:
It's not my job to teach others how I want them to behave in my society. Even if it is, the best method is certainly not direct, abusive confrontation.

I think it's kinda telling that you assume "tirade" is abusive (though the dictionary does include "angry" in the definition). What's sad is that you think direct confrontation is not the way to deal with a problem. Should we just pussyfoot around the subject, then? Maybe we should sit down with armed robbers and have dialogue? Just let litterbugs and criminals have their way and then play happy nursemaid? Not for me, thanks.

Quote:
There's a chip and a shoulder around here somewhere...

No, I don't think that's quite accurate. That would imply that someone is looking for problems, daring someone to do something. Not the case here. In fact, the statement is right in line with the kind of behavior being lauded in this thread by the majority: subtle implication or inaction rather than direct, clear statements or actions. But again, it's the kind of argument I've come to expect from people looking for a way to justify their failure to act when action is called for. Just like hinting that someone who does choose to act must be Republican, or would do whatever their government tells them to, etc, etc....

Quote:
Couldn't Jon have whipped out a camera and gathered evidence for the police? What if we all had that idea pop into our heads instead of 'I'm gonna give that turd what he deserves!!'?

Actually, I'm not as much finding fault with Jon (who admits he was surprised he didn't do anything, as he felt he would in that situation) as I am with all the cheering his inaction has garnered.

Posted by: loren

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 24/11/2006 02:39

Quote:
Just like hinting that someone who does choose to act must be Republican, or would do whatever their government tells them to, etc, etc....

I just want to again make it clear that I wasn't hinting at either. I made the statement about "doing whatever their govm't tells them" simply because it struck me as one example of following ideals to an extreme. Poorly worded perhaps.

Posted by: webroach

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 24/11/2006 02:45

Quote:
Quote:
Just like hinting that someone who does choose to act must be Republican, or would do whatever their government tells them to, etc, etc....

I just want to again make it clear that I wasn't hinting at either. I made the statement about "doing whatever their govm't tells them" simply because it struck me as one example of following ideals to an extreme. Poorly worded perhaps.

Understood, and it wasn't aimed at anyone in particular, Loren. But I would argue that the example is anything but an example of following ideals. It's more of an example of following orders. A very different, and much more dangerous, pursuit.

Posted by: loren

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 24/11/2006 04:30

In this context I meant following an ideal like patriotism or battling "evil".... or substitute any ideal where adhering to black and white extremes precludes seeing the gray areas and/or occludes other's definitions of the extremes. A statement such as "you should stand up for what is right, no matter what" strikes me that way.

Posted by: webroach

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 24/11/2006 07:48

Quote:
In this context I meant following an ideal like patriotism or battling "evil".... or substitute any ideal where adhering to black and white extremes precludes seeing the gray areas and/or occludes other's definitions of the extremes. A statement such as "you should stand up for what is right, no matter what" strikes me that way.

So are you saying you should sometimes not stand up for what is right? Not that it's sometimes dangerous, or unpleasant, but that sometimes standing up for what is right is not what you should do?

Posted by: rob

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 24/11/2006 12:50

I suspect we can argue principles all day, but if we are ever faced with this situation it will happen so quickly we will act completely instinctively. Your instinct might be to intervene or not. You might not even be able to understand the situation fast enough to act, even if your instinct is then to do so (too late).

Certain professionals are trained to recognise, assess and act on a situation in real time as it develops. Most of us do not have the benefit of that training. Whether we act the hero or the coward in the heat of the moment will probably have little to do with our ethical viewpoint.

Rob

Posted by: JeffS

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 24/11/2006 13:34

If I were in this situation I would honestly fear that getting invovled might escalate the situation and make it worse.

Posted by: loren

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 24/11/2006 15:47

Quote:
So are you saying you should sometimes not stand up for what is right? Not that it's sometimes dangerous, or unpleasant, but that sometimes standing up for what is right is not what you should do?

Exactly what I'm saying. There are times when the risk/result/benefit to society/whatever don't ally with the "righteousness" of the situation. Again, we can play the extreme example game if you want, but if you say that you will ALWAYS no matter what the circumstances are do what you deem "right", then you are following an ideal to an extreme where everything is black and white and that view doesn't match up with reality. That's the line of thinking I was pointing to with my weak war example. It comes to mind just because it's everywhere and obvious, and I'm not aligning your views to it at all, but this type of extreme idealism is demonstrated perfectly by the Iraq war and the ideal of spreading democracy and "freedom". Again, I don't want to get onto that sidetrack, but I'm using that just as an example of how idealistic ideology can lead you to a futile dangerous ending.

I get your point, that indeed we should strive to stand up for what is right despite the fact that we may be hurt by it in one way or another because the overall benefits to society are greater than that risk. I just don't agree with an idea such as that one should try and take down a guy pointing a gun in a shopkeepers face while he is stealing a pack of gum, and you are unarmed. Because that is exactly what you seem to be advocating. Or did I miss the part where you said there IS a gray area?

Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 24/11/2006 21:22

Quote:
I just don't agree with an idea such as that one should try and take down a guy pointing a gun in a shopkeepers face while he is stealing a pack of gum, and you are unarmed.

There's a difference between doing the right thing and being stupid. If there's nothing you can do, then there's nothing you can do. But if you can do something, then you should.

Posted by: lectric

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 25/11/2006 14:49

Let this happen in Texas and see what happens. People are much less afraid of the perp being armed when they themselves are armed, and know with a good bit of certainty that plenty of law-abiding folks around them are ALSO armed.

While I'd like to say I'd have done something, I may not have. It all depends on how close I am to my 9mm under my seat. Have I ever had to pull my weapon? Twice. Once in my home and once in my car. Both were trying to rob me and both times the situation dissolved instantly. To be sure, I carry range rounds, not black talons, so I'm not interested in killing someone, just in REALLY getting their attention. Range rounds are solid slugs, much less likely to do lethal damage, but perfectly capable of punching a neat little hole.

Posted by: tanstaafl.

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 25/11/2006 19:01

You have no good reason to assume he was armed. Any more than he had to assume you weren't.

Ummmm.... yeah, right.

Let's see, here apparently is a criminal fleeing apprehension by the police. And here is some guy standing by his car in the parking lot, loading groceries.

Now, which one is more likely to be armed? Oh, that's a tough one...

tanstaafl.

Posted by: loren

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 25/11/2006 21:38

Quote:
Quote:
I just don't agree with an idea such as that one should try and take down a guy pointing a gun in a shopkeepers face while he is stealing a pack of gum, and you are unarmed.

There's a difference between doing the right thing and being stupid. If there's nothing you can do, then there's nothing you can do. But if you can do something, then you should.

Thanks for summing up my point.

Posted by: canuckInOR

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 28/11/2006 01:43

Quote:
I launched into a tirade against a little gangbanger a few weeks ago for just tossing his yogurt container on the ground at the bus stop.

This has been a fascinating thread, but I have one question... what sort of self-respecting gangbanger would be seen in public eating yogurt? What's next quiche?

That said, I think I agree with Loren -- there's a grey area that you're missing, somewhere. What if it had turned out that the kid had stolen some candy because his friend had gone into diabetic shock a couple blocks from the store, but didn't have any glucose tablets on hand? (My dad's been in a similar situation with a work-mate, though luckily, he had some sugar packets in the glove-box of his work truck.) Your stepping in to "do the right thing" in that scenario could potentially cost someone their life.

But it is important to do the right thing when possible. This weekend, I stopped a bunch of folks from throwing rocks over the edge of the Grand Canyon, directly over a busy trail.

Cheers,

Posted by: webroach

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 28/11/2006 03:48

Quote:
But it is important to do the right thing when possible. This weekend, I stopped a bunch of folks from throwing rocks over the edge of the Grand Canyon, directly over a busy trail.

Cheers,

This is exactly my point... You stopped people from doing something that was (a) wrong, (b) dangerous, and (c) detrimental to society (if only the society of hikers, etc). But this thread, until I posted, seemed to consist primarily of people cheering the exact opposite behavior. You could have very easily gotten beaten to death (by rabid Boy Scouts?

) for trying to stop people from throwing rocks over the edge of the Grand Canyon, but you still said / did something. That's the heart of what I'm saying. The early posts in this thread were all about "good job not getting involved!". Not, in my opinion, the most civically minded approach.

Posted by: jbauer

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 28/11/2006 06:29

Here's another weird scenario that I came across the other day. I went to a pretty seedy part of town (16th and Mission for those that know what that means) the other day for a tube of meat and cheese and rice and stuff (a burrito). As I'm walking out, I walk by some dude that was obviously selling drugs to another dude.

So all you do-gooders on here - what would you do? Grab the baggie and call the cops? Tackle the guy? What?

Of course, I'm the destroyer of modern society - a man without morals, scruples, or principles - and I walked right on by...

- Jon

Posted by: tahir

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 28/11/2006 10:42

Quote:
So all you do-gooders on here - what would you do? Grab the baggie and call the cops? Tackle the guy? What?

Of course, I'm the destroyer of modern society - a man without morals, scruples, or principles - and I walked right on by...

If I'd stopped to intervene every time I've seen drugs being traded I'd have been dead a looong time by now.

Posted by: mlord

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 28/11/2006 12:46

Quote:

So all you do-gooders on here - what would you do? Grab the baggie and call the cops? Tackle the guy? What?

I would lobby to legalize the use of such drugs, with heavy regulation. This would very likely put an end to major funding sources for organized crime, topple the remnants of the Taliban in Afghanistan, and save the USA (why do I care about them??) hundreds of billions of dollars yearly.

Cheers

Posted by: ithoughti

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 28/11/2006 13:07

Quote:
... see a man (maybe early 20s, thin, sweatshirt, African American) running towards me...

Interesting. How did you know he was African American? If he were white would you have described him as such?

As far as your original question: I think you did the right thing. I don't think that stuff (i.e. the crap getting stolen) is EVER worth getting hurt over. Why bother? It's just stuff. If he was beating someone up, then do something, but if no one is in danger, who cares?

Posted by: mlord

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 28/11/2006 13:16

Quote:
Why bother? It's just stuff

In this case, perhaps. But thus encouraged, next time it might be more serious. And so on. Pretty soon, instead of petty theft, the guy's invading other countries and killing tens of thousands or more. Gotta nip that behaviour in the bud, folks!

Posted by: robricc

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 28/11/2006 13:57

Quote:
Quote:
... see a man (maybe early 20s, thin, sweatshirt, African American) running towards me...

Interesting. How did you know he was African American? If he were white would you have described him as such?

He probably chose to say that because the word "black" has developed a negative connotation. If John was black and was describing the same person, but of European descent, he would probably call the thief white.

Posted by: jbauer

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 28/11/2006 14:08

Quote:
Quote:
... see a man (maybe early 20s, thin, sweatshirt, African American) running towards me...

Interesting. How did you know he was African American? If he were white would you have described him as such?

As far as your original question: I think you did the right thing. I don't think that stuff (i.e. the crap getting stolen) is EVER worth getting hurt over. Why bother? It's just stuff. If he was beating someone up, then do something, but if no one is in danger, who cares?

I KNEW someone was gonna say that! Yes, I was describing the situation. If he was white, I would have said that too! Would you have asked your question if I had described him as caucasion?

Mentioning someone's skin color is not racist.

- Jon

Posted by: ithoughti

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 28/11/2006 14:25

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
... see a man (maybe early 20s, thin, sweatshirt, African American) running towards me...

Interesting. How did you know he was African American? If he were white would you have described him as such?

As far as your original question: I think you did the right thing. I don't think that stuff (i.e. the crap getting stolen) is EVER worth getting hurt over. Why bother? It's just stuff. If he was beating someone up, then do something, but if no one is in danger, who cares?

I KNEW someone was gonna say that! Yes, I was describing the situation. If he was white, I would have said that too! Would you have asked your question if I had described him as caucasion?

Mentioning someone's skin color is not racist.

- Jon

Mentioning someone's skin color (no matter what it is) when it makes no difference in the situation is racially motivated. I'm NOT saying you are racist. However, your situation does not warrant a description of color. Height, weight, sex and age perhaps (because it's important if you were to get in a scuffle with him) however, his color has nothing to do with his abilites to fight you or whatever.

Imagine if you had left his color out, then someone in the thread asked if he was white or black? Most people here would have reacted with "why does it matter?" See the difference?

There are LOTS of things around us that are very subtly racially motivated all the time. We need to give that stuff a critical eye and do our best to stay away from it. I'm not talking PC bull crap either. I'm not offended by you decribing his race, but we have to wonder where the need to do that in certain situations comes from.

Of course if you were decribing the situation to a cop, etc that was trying to find the individual, then it's important to note color.

Again, I am NOT calling you a racist.

Posted by: Redrum

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 28/11/2006 15:29

Quote:

I let him run right by.

Thoughts?

- Jon

In your case it sounds to me like you made a good decision.

IT terminology -> "Unclear specification "

From the little bit of information you had you really couldn't tell what was happening. I recently read about some actors that almost got shot, by real cops, playing out a kidnapping scene. The cops had no idea it wasn't real.

Everyone would like to be the hero but it’s often hard to tell the good guys from the bad guys or even what’s really happening.

Posted by: JeffS

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 28/11/2006 15:51

Quote:
Mentioning someone's skin color (no matter what it is) when it makes no difference in the situation is racially motivated.

So what do you call mentioning that the guy had on a sweatshirt, which also made no real difference?

Posted by: ithoughti

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 28/11/2006 16:02

Quote:
Quote:
Mentioning someone's skin color (no matter what it is) when it makes no difference in the situation is racially motivated.
So what do you call mentioning that the guy had on a sweatshirt, which also made no real difference?

useless, but not racially motivated. Although, if he had body armor on, (or was naked) that would be worth metioning.

I can tell you don't agree with my opinions though.

Posted by: tanstaafl.

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 28/11/2006 16:05

next time it might be more serious. And so on. Pretty soon, instead of petty theft, the guy's invading other countries and killing tens of thousands or more.

Awwww..... C'mon. That could never happen!

Oh. Wait...

tanstaafl.

Posted by: JeffS

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 28/11/2006 16:09

Quote:
I can tell you don't agree with my opinions though.

I don't. I think that he was providing a description, and when we describe things we often include color, whether it be people, cars, whatever. The entire description is probably not important to the story; however, it helps give readers some picture of what happened, and THAT is simply good communication. To explicitly NOT include something in our description because we are afraid of being branded as "racially motiavated" is not a good thing.

Posted by: ithoughti

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 28/11/2006 16:21

Quote:
Quote:
I can tell you don't agree with my opinions though.
I don't. I think that he was providing a description, and when we describe things we often include color, whether it be people, cars, whatever. The entire description is probably not important to the story; however, it helps give readers some picture of what happened, and THAT is simply good communication. To explicitly NOT include something in our description because we are afraid of being branded as "racially motiavated" is not a good thing.

yep, I used to think the same thing. My gf is getting her PhD studying such things though, so my eyes have been opened as a result of our discussions. I'm not all that great at communicating the same ideas as she is unfortunately.

but what I said before is the best way I can explain it: "imagine if you had left his color out, then someone in the thread asked if he was white or black? Most people here would have reacted with "why does it matter?"

Posted by: JeffS

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 28/11/2006 16:34

Quote:
imagine if you had left his color out, then someone in the thread asked if he was white or black? Most people here would have reacted with "why does it matter?

Which would have been the same reaction as if he'd not mentioned the sweatshirt and someone asked what the guy had on.

I get that people make assumptions they shouldn't make because of someone's skin color, and it's a horrible thing. But making it a taboo subject isn't helping this anything. If I describe everything in my environment by its color and then leave out people, the gap says much more than the inclusion would have. Racial bias isn't going away any time soon, unfortunatly, and it is going to take more than deleting vocabluary from our words to fix the problem.

Posted by: mlord

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 28/11/2006 17:04

Quote:
Quote:
... see a man (maybe early 20s, thin, sweatshirt, African American) running towards me...

Mentioning someone's [sex] (no matter what it is) when it makes no difference in the situation is [sexual discrimination]. I'm NOT saying you are [sexist]. However, your situation does not warrant a description of [sex]. Height, weight, colour and age perhaps (because it's important if you were to get in a scuffle with him) however, his sex has nothing to do with his abilites to fight you or whatever.

Women have black (err... coloured) belts, too. And what's with the age discrimination? Does it really matter that he's early 20's, or late teens, or 30's, or 40's etc..?

Sheesh. What a bunch of politically correct bigots!

Posted by: canuckInOR

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 28/11/2006 18:44

Quote:
And what's with the age discrimination? Does it really matter that he's early 20's, or late teens, or 30's, or 40's etc..?

No kidding. Did we learn nothing from Karate Kid?

Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 29/11/2006 03:12

Just because you point out someone's race, it doesn't make you a racist. Here's a great example that illustrates my point perfectly.

Posted by: loren

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 29/11/2006 07:57

Quote:
Just because you point out someone's race, it doesn't make you a racist. Here's a great example that illustrates my point perfectly.

Not that I'm calling Richards a racist person, but you have to differenciate (which apparently isn't a word) between using a racial slur as an intentional racial insult and plainly pointing out someone's color.

Posted by: Roger

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 29/11/2006 08:08

Quote:
you have to differenciate (which apparently isn't a word) between using a racial slur as an intentional racial insult and plainly pointing out someone's color.

That's because it's "differentiate". The root is "different", not "difference".

Back on topic. I don't think that, in this instance, calling the perp "black" is any worse than (for example) pointing out that he was driving a white pickup truck. We all like to visualise situations as they're described to us; these details mean that our mental picture is more similar to that of the person telling us the story.

Now, if he'd not mentioned the perp's colour, and your mental picture filled in a specific colour, that might be considered to say something...

Posted by: loren

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 29/11/2006 09:04

Thank you.... and good point.

Posted by: Dignan

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 29/11/2006 11:27

Oh boy, I really don't want to get into this discussion, but I'm too curious.

To those who are arguiing to always step in (Webroach, primarily), I have a question: when you're driving, do you drive the exact speed limit or less? Do you stay in your lane no matter how fast the people behind you want to go?

Posted by: ithoughti

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 29/11/2006 13:16

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
... see a man (maybe early 20s, thin, sweatshirt, African American) running towards me...

Mentioning someone's [sex] (no matter what it is) when it makes no difference in the situation is [sexual discrimination]. I'm NOT saying you are [sexist]. However, your situation does not warrant a description of [sex]. Height, weight, colour and age perhaps (because it's important if you were to get in a scuffle with him) however, his sex has nothing to do with his abilites to fight you or whatever.

Women have black (err... coloured) belts, too. And what's with the age discrimination? Does it really matter that he's early 20's, or late teens, or 30's, or 40's etc..?

Sheesh. What a bunch of politically correct bigots!

You didnt read my post very carefully. Sex, age, weight, height, type of clothing, makes a difference as to how someone had to deal with the person. A 15 year old female 85lbs would be a bit easier to take down than a 22 year old male 230lbs.

I'm not trying to be politcally correct, that has nothing to do with it. I'm trying to take care of the subconscious racial bias that exists.

Posted by: canuckInOR

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 29/11/2006 19:43

Quote:
Oh boy, I really don't want to get into this discussion, but I'm too curious.

To those who are arguiing to always step in (Webroach, primarily), I have a question: when you're driving, do you drive the exact speed limit or less? Do you stay in your lane no matter how fast the people behind you want to go?

I don't think these questions are comparable to the situation at hand. Right, wrong, moral, immoral and amoral don't always jive with law. We only have to go back to our debate about gay marriage, or abortion, or other similar hot-topics to show that.

The speed limit is one of those things where, depending on the context, it doesn't hurt anyone, and isn't really "wrong", aside from it being "against the law". When I'm in a school zone, I drive at, or below the speed limit. When I was driving home from the Grand Canyon over the weekend, across the desert, I was driving 80+ MPH, along with everyone else. Sure, I was "wrong" according to an arbitrarily set law, but I was also "right" to follow the flow of traffic, since studies have shown it to be a safer way to drive, and I certainly have no moral feelings one way or the other about speed limits.

As to your second question, yes, I stay in my lane, no matter how fast people behind me want to go (unless it's an emergency vehicle, of course), but then I'm one of those people who tries to stay in the right lane unless passing, anyway, so I seldom block speeders in the first place. The times I do block someone, then tough noogies -- flashing your lights, weaving around so I can see you in my mirrors, and tailgating isn't going to help your cause. It's my lane, and I'll move over when I'm ready to. Funnily enough, there have been a few times where I've had a tailgater moron behind me in such a hurry to pass me (while I'm passing someone else), that, as soon as they have space to squeak around, they attempt to pass on the right, only to have me cut them off as I change back into the lane I'm supposed to be in.

Posted by: Dignan

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 29/11/2006 20:03

Quote:
The speed limit is one of those things where, depending on the context, it doesn't hurt anyone, and isn't really "wrong", aside from it being "against the law".

You say that the speed limit on your highway drive was arbitrary, but you follow the limit signs in a school zone? That, IMO, is also arbitrary. Is it just that the second situation has more apparent reasoning for the limit (school children) than the first might (road curvature, banking, possible rain conditions etc)?

I understand your points about the law not necessarily fitting into the argument, but that wasn't what I was getting at. I was more interested in whether you forced your opinion on others, as that seems to be what is going on in this thread with a couple of people.

I should have been more specific. If you're not in the passing lane, I don't see much problem with sticking your ground. I went to traffic school when I was a teenager, and the instructor insisted that every driver in the room should drive 55mph in every lane on 495. His point was that you should go 55 and show the other people on the road that they should go 55. This thread reminded me of that "lesson."

Posted by: loren

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 29/11/2006 20:31

Quote:
I went to traffic school when I was a teenager, and the instructor insisted that every driver in the room should drive 55mph in every lane on 495. His point was that you should go 55 and show the other people on the road that they should go 55. This thread reminded me of that "lesson."

I want to punch that guy and all his friends in the face. =p

Posted by: webroach

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 29/11/2006 20:36

Quote:
Oh boy, I really don't want to get into this discussion, but I'm too curious.

To those who are arguiing to always step in (Webroach, primarily), I have a question: when you're driving, do you drive the exact speed limit or less? Do you stay in your lane no matter how fast the people behind you want to go?

Since canuckInLA already very eloquently explained what I see as the difference between "right / wrong" and "lawful / unlawful", I'll skip that part and merely say "No" and "No."

Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 29/11/2006 23:38

Quote:
Oh boy, I really don't want to get into this discussion, but I'm too curious.

To those who are arguiing to always step in (Webroach, primarily), I have a question: when you're driving, do you drive the exact speed limit or less? Do you stay in your lane no matter how fast the people behind you want to go?

There's a difference between right/wrong and legal/illegal. For instance, in the wonderful world of Islam, under Sharia Law, it's perfectly legal to kill a "non-human" (eg., a non-muslim) as long as you pay a small fine ("blood money") to the victim's family.

Just because it's legal, it doesn't mean it's right.

Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 29/11/2006 23:53

Quote:

You didnt read my post very carefully. Sex, age, weight, height, type of clothing, makes a difference as to how someone had to deal with the person. A 15 year old female 85lbs would be a bit easier to take down than a 22 year old male 230lbs.

I'm not trying to be politcally correct, that has nothing to do with it. I'm trying to take care of the subconscious racial bias that exists.

No offense, mate, but you are being politically correct. You're a victim of the thought police, aka Newspeak ala 1984. If you can control what people can say, then you can control what they can think. But banishing certain words or concepts that describe a perceived problem does not make that problem go away.

Here's a tidbit of factual info for you. Whites make up something like 80% of the US population, but they are responsible for only about 15% of the crime in the US. The rest of the slack is taken up mostly by blacks. Blacks are more likely to rob and assault you than whites, based on historical crime statistics in the US. So yes, mentioning that the POS thief was black is relevant.

And to me, getting rid of crime is more important than getting rid of a "subconscious racial bias". And in order to get rid of crime, you have to look at who is responsible for the bulk of it. Besides, if a certain group of individuals didn't commit a largely disproportionate amount of crime than everyone else, then there wouldn't be any "subconscious racial bias". And it's not just subconscious -- it's based on fucking facts.

Posted by: Dignan

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 29/11/2006 23:55

Quote:
Quote:
I went to traffic school when I was a teenager, and the instructor insisted that every driver in the room should drive 55mph in every lane on 495. His point was that you should go 55 and show the other people on the road that they should go 55. This thread reminded me of that "lesson."

I want to punch that guy and all his friends in the face. =p

Yeah, it was pretty hilarious. Due to my age, I had to have a parent with me, and my dad was sitting through this lesson* snickering the whole time.

Plus, the guy's name was Sam Hill. I had a lot of fun with that. "What in Sam Hill is he talking about?"

*his lesson included diagrams, like a shot of a four lane highway with cars side-by-side in each lane, all going 55. I would love to see that on an actual highway.

Posted by: lectric

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 30/11/2006 02:38

Not to threadjack, but I was noticing something the other day. I'm originally from Pensacola, and I learned to drive there. While living in P'cola, when an emergency vehicle was approaching from behind, everyone pulled OFF the road and stopped. If it was a road with no median, BOTH LANES pulled over and stopped. After the emergency vehicle passed, people got back on the road in exactly the same order they got off in and continued about their merry way.

In New Orleans, you're lucky if people clear a way in just one lane for the emergency vehicle to pass. The don't even stop moving. God forbid you pull off the side of the road. It may be 10 minutes before someone lets you back on again.

It seems to me that if everyone assumed the ambulance was going to fetch their mother or that the fire engine was going to put out their house, that may influence them to behave differently. Apparently that has never entered the minds of New Orlenians.

I guess my question is, what is the behavior like where you live? Perhaps I can figure out if it's a regional thing, or an urban vs smaller town thing.

As a side note, the same is true of a funeral procession. In FL, both sides of the road pulled out of the way and stopped for the 20 seconds it took for the processional to pass, just out of respect for the family of the deceased. Here, they just flow with traffic along with everyone else, unless they hire a police escort, which kindof enforces the matter.

Posted by: Robotic

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 30/11/2006 02:38

Quote:
Quote:
I went to traffic school when I was a teenager, and the instructor insisted that every driver in the room should drive 55mph in every lane on 495. His point was that you should go 55 and show the other people on the road that they should go 55. This thread reminded me of that "lesson."

I want to punch that guy and all his friends in the face. =p

+1

In California the signs say "Slower traffic keep right". Since nobody ever considers themselves to be 'less than' anyone else insofar as driving is concerned, few people actually drive in the lane they're supposed to.

I really want those words to be changed to "Keep right except to pass". That's what the signs say in Nevada. It's much more direct and doesn't require you to compare yourself with others. Besides, if everyone *behind* you is limited to your speed, you're not actually *slower* than they are! Grrrr.

Please, let's not start on traffic etiquette!

Posted by: lectric

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 30/11/2006 02:48

Every time I hear about traffic ettiquite, I think of This.

Posted by: webroach

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 30/11/2006 10:27

Quote:
I guess my question is, what is the behavior like where you live? Perhaps I can figure out if it's a regional thing, or an urban vs smaller town thing.

It's pretty much as you describe. It's not regional, it's not a urban vs. small town thing, it's simply a matter of people only being concerned for themselves, with no concern for the rest of the people in their community. So don't worry about thread-jacking, since that is exactly the problem that caused this thread.

Posted by: Dignan

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 30/11/2006 11:47

Quote:
Not to threadjack, but I was noticing something the other day.

I'll take some of the blame for the tangent

As crazy as northern Virginians drive, they do pull over to let emergency vehicles pass. Always.

Now that you mention it, I don't remember the last time I saw a funeral procession...

Posted by: lectric

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 30/11/2006 23:03

The bad thing is... I have stopped pulling over for emergency vehicles, and I feel guilty every time. If I do try to pull off, people just blow my doors off as they pass by.

Posted by: Roger

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 01/12/2006 08:25

Quote:
I guess my question is, what is the behavior like where you live? Perhaps I can figure out if it's a regional thing, or an urban vs smaller town thing.

In London, everybody seems really good at getting out of the way of emergency vehicles -- when they can, obviously.

However, I did once see a policeman have to get out of a police van (lights flashing, siren wailing) to tell someone to move their car forward into a junction (against a red light), so that the van could get past.

The other week, I was driving on the motorway when I saw an ambulance in the distance in the rear view mirror. I mentioned to the wife that I'd pull out of his way when he caught up with me. He didn't

Posted by: loren

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 01/12/2006 15:22

Quote:
The bad thing is... I have stopped pulling over for emergency vehicles, and I feel guilty every time. If I do try to pull off, people just blow my doors off as they pass by.

So what? You should still pull over.

I live directly across the street from a hospital, on a six lane divided boulevard (3 on each side). Yesterday I heard an ambulance siren, which is actually odd to hear because the ambulances coming and going from the hospital have some sort of noise respect zone going where they turn their sound off when close to the hospital. I looked out my window to see three cars lined up side by side at the red stop light, and an ambulance directly behind them in the center lane, all lights and sirens blaring, and the driver screaming at the car in front of him over his loud speaker to get the hell out of the way. Utterly amazing. The person didn't even think to move until they were yelled at by the driver... and then slowly crept out of the way. WTF. GET OUT OF THE WAY PEOPLE. I see this kind of crap ALL the time here in SF. It's reaaaly bad. I always think how I could never be an ambulance driver, I'd just end up plowing through jack asses bumpers.

Posted by: lectric

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 01/12/2006 16:02

Quote:
So what? You should still pull over.

Good point. I always considered it as driving with the normal flow of traffic, which around here means NEVER using a blinker, tailgating, and consistently having 3 or so people run every stop light. I should set the example and maybe after 15 years or so, they might get it.

The funny , or sad, thing to me is that if people would just realize that if everyone followed the rules, everyone would get to their destination quicker. Things might change, but everyone thinks that they are the exception to the rule.

If there is road construction up ahead and the left lane is ending, pull over as soon as you can and the flow of traffic continues. If you do what you WANT to do, you drive as far as you can in the left lane and try to merge over at the last minute, snarling traffic for everyone behind you. While this doesn't directly affect you, the 187 people that did it in front of you certainly affected you.

Posted by: mlord

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 01/12/2006 16:53

Quote:
if everyone followed the rules, everyone would get to their destination quicker.

Sadly, that's not universally true. But it definitely applies better in denser traffic areas, where you undoubtedly intended it.

The opposite case is a long highway, with one car religiously going at the limit of (up here) 80kmh. No question I'll pass it going 105kmh.

Cheers

Posted by: lectric

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 01/12/2006 17:38

10-4 on that. Speed limits were not figured into my statement. I tend to find speed limits faaar too arbitrarily set. I was refering to things such as right of way, stop signs, passing lanes, etc.

Posted by: ithoughti

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 05/12/2006 14:38

Quote:
Quote:

You didnt read my post very carefully. Sex, age, weight, height, type of clothing, makes a difference as to how someone had to deal with the person. A 15 year old female 85lbs would be a bit easier to take down than a 22 year old male 230lbs.

I'm not trying to be politcally correct, that has nothing to do with it. I'm trying to take care of the subconscious racial bias that exists.

No offense, mate, but you are being politically correct. You're a victim of the thought police, aka Newspeak ala 1984. If you can control what people can say, then you can control what they can think. But banishing certain words or concepts that describe a perceived problem does not make that problem go away.

Here's a tidbit of factual info for you. Whites make up something like 80% of the US population, but they are responsible for only about 15% of the crime in the US. The rest of the slack is taken up mostly by blacks. Blacks are more likely to rob and assault you than whites, based on historical crime statistics in the US. So yes, mentioning that the POS thief was black is relevant.

And to me, getting rid of crime is more important than getting rid of a "subconscious racial bias". And in order to get rid of crime, you have to look at who is responsible for the bulk of it. Besides, if a certain group of individuals didn't commit a largely disproportionate amount of crime than everyone else, then there wouldn't be any "subconscious racial bias". And it's not just subconscious -- it's based on fucking facts.

WOW. Thanks for the REALLY interesting factual information!!!

Do you think that black people commit crimes BECAUSE THEY ARE BLACK? Those statistics are total bullshit. POOR, disadvantaged, uneducated people commit the majority of the crimes in this country. Now you may want to ask, WHY are so many blacks living in poor areas in this country? Probably because of ignorant fools like you.

Posted by: robricc

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 05/12/2006 15:01

Quote:
WOW. Thanks for the REALLY interesting factual information!!!

Do you think that black people commit crimes BECAUSE THEY ARE BLACK? Those statistics are total bullshit. POOR, disadvantaged, uneducated people commit the majority of the crimes in this country. Now you may want to ask, WHY are so many blacks living in poor areas in this country? Probably because of ignorant fools like you.

See the Pound Cake Speech. I guess Bill Cosby (a black man) is also a fool.

I don't know if you're trying to be politically correct or if you're just burdened with a tremendous amount of white guilt.

I didn't look for anything to disprove Billy's "statistics," but I think it should be noted that I had to reason to doubt them. I know which neighborhoods to stay away from at night.

Posted by: wfaulk

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 05/12/2006 15:28

While I think Bill Cosby is right, it is a predicament of poor people, not black people. It just so happens that a higher percentage of black people are poor. His statements can just as well be applied to poor white trash as it can poor black trash. Not all poor people are trash, but enough are that it casts their neighborhoods in a bad light. You think that most of those people want to live there?

There are a number of black neighborhoods I know to stay away from. There are also a number of white neighborhoods I know to stay away from, too.

Posted by: robricc

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 05/12/2006 15:52

Quote:
You think that most of those people want to live there?

I think a lot of them have no problem living there.

Indians and other South Asians come to this country for its opportunity. They figure out how to get a Dunkin Donuts, 7-Eleven, or gas station franchises and make something of themselves and future generations.

Take a drive through Spring Valley, NY and you see black guys during all hours of the day on the street corner, drinking out of paper bags, and hanging out in bodegas. I know of no other community of people where such a large number of young males simply don't work.

Yeah, there are bad white neighborhoods, but I can only think of two within 100 miles of me. Every black neighborhood I can think of is considered bad, and not just by me. A glance at any local paper will let you know.

Posted by: cushman

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 05/12/2006 16:02

Quote:
his lesson included diagrams, like a shot of a four lane highway with cars side-by-side in each lane, all going 55. I would love to see that on an actual highway.

Your wish...

Posted by: wfaulk

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 05/12/2006 16:26

Quote:
Indians and other South Asians come to this country for its opportunity.

You think it was free to come here? These people packed up their entire lives to come here, paying for a number of airline tickets, paying enough to get a Dunkin Donuts franchise, enough to buy or rent a building to house it in, etc. If you gave those poor Americans the same amount of money, they'd have the same opportunities.

Just as an example, the Subway franchise seems to be the foreigner franchise of choice down here. This link claims a Subway can be opened for "as little as $87,300", and goes on to comment that "costs are so low". You think those poor families have $87,300 lying around? The Dunkin Donuts franchise web site says "For Dunkin' Donuts store territories, minimum liquid assets is $650-750K and net worth of $1.2 - $1.5million depending on the markets. Some markets require a minimum number of units developed." They certainly don't have that kind of scratch.

Of course, none of this means that there aren't people out there that have no desire to improve themselves. Many of us have the ability to coast along and not be poor, but many don't.

Posted by: robricc

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 05/12/2006 16:29

Quote:
You think those poor families have $87,300 lying around?

They seem to have a lot of credit to buy things they can't afford. Not to mention government programs and various laws in their favor.

How about actually applying that advantage to getting ahead instead of living off the system?

Posted by: Redrum

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 05/12/2006 16:36

Quote:
Quote:
You think that most of those people want to live there?

I think a lot of them have no problem living there.

Indians and other South Asians come to this country for its opportunity. They figure out how to get a Dunkin Donuts, 7-Eleven, or gas station franchises and make something of themselves and future generations.

Non-Blacks entering black neighborhoods and "Making good for themselves" has caused a lot resentment, bigotry and backlash from blacks.

I suppose a lot of the reason many blacks are on welfare is because it’s a family tradition. But man, wakeup and break the cycle. At least don't trash the 7/11 because an Asian family is trying and doing well.

Posted by: Redrum

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 05/12/2006 17:14

Quote:
Quote:
Indians and other South Asians come to this country for its opportunity.

You think it was free to come here? These people packed up their entire lives to come here, paying for a number of airline tickets, paying enough to get a Dunkin Donuts franchise, enough to buy or rent a building to house it in, etc. If you gave those poor Americans the same amount of money, they'd have the same opportunities.

Just as an example, the Subway franchise seems to be the foreigner franchise of choice down here. This link claims a Subway can be opened for "as little as $87,300", and goes on to comment that "costs are so low". You think those poor families have $87,300 lying around? The Dunkin Donuts franchise web site says "For Dunkin' Donuts store territories, minimum liquid assets is $650-750K and net worth of $1.2 - $1.5million depending on the markets. Some markets require a minimum number of units developed." They certainly don't have that kind of scratch.

Of course, none of this means that there aren't people out there that have no desire to improve themselves. Many of us have the ability to coast along and not be poor, but many don't.

New arrival to the US:

1) Sell everything and leave everything you know and come to America

2) Go magorly in debt to by a crappie little shop

3) Sleep in the back room of the shop when not working 20 hours a day to keep it going. Try to learn, on the fly, how to operate a business in a country you’re not familiar with.

4) After working for years finally move out of the back room to an apartment.

5) Maybe someday make something for yourself before you die

Current USA poor resident

1) Live in a apartment - provided free by the government

2) Have no worries of going hungry – food stamps provided by the government

3) Free heath care at the local clinic - provided by the government

4) Free welfare money. Also, more kids, more money, so have a lot – money provided by the government

5) Free holiday gifts and food – provided by local free stores

6) Have all day free to hang out at the corner drinking a 40

Most people don’t want to decrease their standard of living so taking out a loan, living in the back room, working hard, why bother.

However, back on subject, maybe the guy that ripped off the hair clippers will sart his own business and he did him a favor by not taking him down

Posted by: wfaulk

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 05/12/2006 17:17

While there is a lot of laziness in poor communities (not that there's not also a lot of laziness in middle-class and rich communities, too), it's really hard to break the cycle of poverty when the best job you can get is working retail. A minimum wage job is under $11,000 a year, and there's unlikely to be any health insurance or paid time off in such a job.

Posted by: Redrum

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 05/12/2006 17:22

Quote:
While there is a lot of laziness in poor communities (not that there's not also a lot of laziness in middle-class and rich communities, too), it's really hard to break the cycle of poverty when the best job you can get is working retail. A minimum wage job is under $11,000 a year, and there's unlikely to be any health insurance or paid time off in such a job.

I agree. We should make public services less appealing so as to add motivation for the poor to get off the dime. While supporting job growth.

I personally know two people that got "disability" (a higher payout from the government for not being able to work). You would have thought they hit the lottery they were so happy. One is a crack-head who got on disability for attention deficit disorder (come on) the another one was just fat, lazy and didn't want to work. He got on disability for bad knees (yea, he weights 400 pounds because he just sits on his ass and eats).

The thought that I have to support these people for life makes me sick.

Posted by: wfaulk

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 05/12/2006 17:32

Quote:
1) Live in a apartment - provided free by the government

The projects in my city are largely not free. In addition, getting a job doesn't increase your rent for 18 months, so you won't be taking in less money just because you started working.

Quote:
3) Free heath care at the local clinic - provided by the government

Free clinics are not run by the government, but they are largely open only during business hours and even then desperately understaffed, which means that people usually get sent away.

Posted by: wfaulk

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 05/12/2006 17:33

Quote:
We should make public services less appealing

How should they be less appealing? They're pretty unappealing as is.

Of course, none of this shows me how black people are responsible for this situation.

Posted by: Redrum

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 05/12/2006 17:49

Quote:
Quote:
1) Live in a apartment - provided free by the government

The projects in my city are largely not free. In addition, getting a job doesn't increase your rent for 18 months, so you won't be taking in less money just because you started working.

Quote:
3) Free heath care at the local clinic - provided by the government

Free clinics are not run by the government, but they are largely open only during business hours and even then desperately understaffed, which means that people usually get sent away.

In my part of the country we have section 8 housing and other housing benefits that provides free housing, for life. We also have “city” hospitals that are required to take all patients regardless of the ability to pay. My cousin was a nurse at one for a time. I imagine the hospital receives subsidies from the government for this requirement. The services are limited mostly to emergency services. So if you’re poor and have a cold you go to the trauma center for treatment. This then clogs the trauma center with sore throat victims while real trauma patents are left waiting. Also the cost of a trauma center visit is much more expensive than a doctor’s office call. Eventually tax payers pay the cost.

Posted by: ithoughti

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 05/12/2006 18:02

Quote:

See the Pound Cake Speech. I guess Bill Cosby (a black man) is also a fool.

I don't know if you're trying to be politically correct or if you're just burdened with a tremendous amount of white guilt.

I didn't look for anything to disprove Billy's "statistics," but I think it should be noted that I had to reason to doubt them. I know which neighborhoods to stay away from at night.

I think a lot of them have no problem living there.

Indians and other South Asians come to this country for its opportunity. They figure out how to get a Dunkin Donuts, 7-Eleven, or gas station franchises and make something of themselves and future generations.

Take a drive through Spring Valley, NY and you see black guys during all hours of the day on the street corner, drinking out of paper bags, and hanging out in bodegas. I know of no other community of people where such a large number of young males simply don't work.

Yeah, there are bad white neighborhoods, but I can only think of two within 100 miles of me. Every black neighborhood I can think of is considered bad, and not just by me. A glance at any local paper will let you know.

Wow Rob, I like you, but you are saying some really ignorant shit in this thread. I don't have "White Guilt". And I never said his statistics were not correct in numbers, I disagree with the conclusions that people draw because of them. It means NOTHING when you say that "black people commit most crimes" while that may be statistically true, their commiting of crimes has nothing to do with the color of their skin (in an absolute sense) and almost everything to do with every other reason. Of course, all too often their situation is indirectly influenced because of their color.

But to say that a black man is more likely to commit a crime because he is black is ignorant, racist and wrong.

Do you REALLY think that anyone wants to live in a poor neighborhood? and your comment about Asians and others coming to this country and running conveinence stores?? What the hell are you even trying to say? Are you implying that blacks are poor because they are lazy? Did you think before you sat down at your keyboard? I don't know if you are trying to be offensive, but it's working on me.

Posted by: wfaulk

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 05/12/2006 18:02

All emergency rooms nationwide are required to accept all patients regardless of their ability to pay.

I'm not sure how this is an argument that we should have fewer government services. The notion of having basic medical care available to all citizens would alleviate this, admittedly existent, problem.

I'm glad that I don't have to make the choice between getting my illness looked at or making $45 that day. I'd rather more people didn't have to make that choice.

Posted by: Dignan

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 05/12/2006 18:02

Quote:
Quote:
his lesson included diagrams, like a shot of a four lane highway with cars side-by-side in each lane, all going 55. I would love to see that on an actual highway.

Your wish...

That was pretty crazy! The production quality was pretty amatuer (college drama folks), but the experiment was interesting. I'm amazed they weren't shot or something.

Posted by: Redrum

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 05/12/2006 18:09

Quote:
How should they be less appealing? They're pretty unappealing as is.

Lowering the service and time spent on the service would be a start. As well as providing more proof that the service is required.

Another personal example – An acquaintance of the family - 24 year old white female, unmarried - got pregnant while living with her boy friend -30 year old white male making +$50 a year and owns his own house. They did not get married and he did not put her on his insurance because she could get free heath care for her and her pregnancy, free food stamps, as well as probably free housing money. The government (me and you) basically paid for this guy to knock up his girl friend, have the kid and add to their income. After the kid was born and the government service ran out he married her.

Posted by: canuckInOR

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 05/12/2006 18:11

Quote:
The services are limited mostly to emergency services. So if you’re poor and have a cold you go to the trauma center for treatment.

This is true.

Quote:
This then clogs the trauma center with sore throat victims while real trauma patents are left waiting.

This, however, is BS. It does jam the ER rooms, but as one who's spent plenty of time queuing up at ER (mostly for stitches and xrays), I can tell you that the real trauma patients are not left waiting. The real trauma patients take priority over the people with sniffles and sneezes. It's the triage receiving nurse's responsibility to categorize how important your emergency really is. I have been left to sit in a room, waiting for xray results, while the doctor went off to attend to car accident victims.

Quote:
Also the cost of a trauma center visit is much more expensive than a doctor’s office call. Eventually tax payers pay the cost.

This is true. And what angers me more, especially as a tax-payer, is that paying for ER visits like this is more expensive than providing preventative health care through a national health care program.

Posted by: wfaulk

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 05/12/2006 18:12

That's pretty scumbaggy. What do you want me to say? "I'm surprised they weren't black"?

Posted by: Redrum

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 05/12/2006 18:28

Quote:
Are you implying that blacks are poor because they are lazy?

While it is undeniable that on average some races are shorter, some are stronger and some have darker skin. Why is it such a stretch to say some races (on average) are smarter than others or more inclined to work. I guess these less tangible traits are more easily excused away by other factors.

The USA may maintain that all men are equal, in regards to rights, but God (or evolution) did not make everyone the same.

Posted by: Redrum

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 05/12/2006 18:31

Quote:
That's pretty scumbaggy. What do you want me to say? "I'm surprised they weren't black"?

You should say. Damn I wish the government (more and more lead by bleeding heart liberals) won't give my money to scum-bags.

Posted by: ithoughti

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 05/12/2006 18:37

Quote:
Quote:
Are you implying that blacks are poor because they are lazy?

While it is undeniable that on average some races are shorter, some are stronger and some have darker skin. Why is it such a stretch to say some races (on average) are smarter than others or more inclined to work. I guess these less tangible traits are more easily excused away by other factors.

The USA may maintain that all men are equal, in regards to rights, but God (or evolution) did not make everyone the same.

Well, then I'm going to imply that whatever race you are is retarded.

(that's a joke people!)

I DARE you to tell my black PhD student gf that her race is inferior to any other race. Go ahead, I DARE you. Ignorant prick.

God damn, I am so upset by the ignorant statements in this thread.

Posted by: Redrum

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 05/12/2006 18:42

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Are you implying that blacks are poor because they are lazy?

While it is undeniable that on average some races are shorter, some are stronger and some have darker skin. Why is it such a stretch to say some races (on average) are smarter than others or more inclined to work. I guess these less tangible traits are more easily excused away by other factors.

The USA may maintain that all men are equal, in regards to rights, but God (or evolution) did not make everyone the same.

Well, then I'm going to imply that whatever race you are is retarded.

(that's a joke people!)

I DARE you to tell my black PhD student gf that her race is inferior to any other race. Go ahead, I DARE you. Ignorant prick.

God damn, I am so upset by the ignorant statements in this thread.

I can tell. You have really been downing everyone.

I just said what you've been prodding everyone else to say. The difference is I don’t give a shit what pompous asses like you think. See I can lower myself to name calling too.

Posted by: ithoughti

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 05/12/2006 18:49

Quote:

I can tell. You have really been downing everyone.

I just said what you've been prodding everyone else to say. The difference is I don’t give a shit what pompous asses like you think. See I can lower myself to name calling too.

Well, certainly my name-calling isn't very nice or productive, but I don't think I'd consider myself pompous. Let me ask you, do you consider your race superior to another?

Posted by: Redrum

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 05/12/2006 18:55

Quote:
I DARE you to tell my black PhD student gf that her race is inferior to any other race. Go ahead, I DARE you. Ignorant prick.

.

No because on average blacks are stronger (superior to whites, it works both ways) than whites and I'd get my ass kicked. However many blacks do see reality so maybe I’d be OK.

For name calling let me add to your day. More firewood - I like that "student" not "students." Try counting the PhD Asians.

Posted by: Redrum

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 05/12/2006 18:58

Quote:
Quote:

I can tell. You have really been downing everyone.

I just said what you've been prodding everyone else to say. The difference is I don’t give a shit what pompous asses like you think. See I can lower myself to name calling too.

Well, certainly my name-calling isn't very nice or productive, but I don't think I'd consider myself pompous. Let me ask you, do you consider your race superior to another?

Sorry I do not. Just with different strengths and weaknesses. God or evolution enabled some races with different traits in order to better deal with survival.

My white ass would not last a weak in the desert.

Posted by: tfabris

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 05/12/2006 19:40

Quote:
Why is it such a stretch to say some races (on average) are smarter than others or more inclined to work.

Because THOSE traits are not controlled by the same genes that control skin color. There is more variation of those traits within the same race than there is across races. Assuming that skin color affects something like intelligence is the most basic definition of racism.

Posted by: Redrum

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 05/12/2006 20:05

Quote:
Quote:
Why is it such a stretch to say some races (on average) are smarter than others or more inclined to work.

Because THOSE traits are not controlled by the same genes that control skin color. There is more variation of those traits within the same race than there is across races. Assuming that skin color affects something like intelligence is the most basic definition of racism.

OK, maybe so. And thanks for not downing me and civilly discussing this.

I do agree that external factors weigh heavily in determining a person’s “being.” However many emotional and mental traits are influenced by heredity. To broaden that line of thinking many emotional and mental traits can be attributed to race IMO.

Posted by: wfaulk

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 05/12/2006 20:18

Honestly, I can't believe that you're actually arguing the point that black people are stupid and lazy.

I'm completely dumbfounded.

Posted by: loren

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 05/12/2006 20:58

Come one Bitt, didn't you know that Jews are more likely to know how to handle money purely because of their parents religious affiliation? This stuff is common knowledge! Seriously... this thread is scary.

Read this.
http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin...5926119779Guest
Study about how stereotypes influence perception of local crime despite the evidence.

and search google for "racial attributes stereotypes" or something similar... and read up.

Posted by: wfaulk

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 05/12/2006 21:04

Your link doesn't work (it looks like it's requiring a cookie only you have) and the fix isn't immediately obvious.

Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 05/12/2006 21:06

Quote:
There is more variation of those traits within the same race than there is across races. Assuming that skin color affects something like intelligence is the most basic definition of racism.

There are measurable differences in several traits across races, but you're right that those traits vary greatly between individuals. So while on average whites have a higher IQ than blacks, you can't say that *all* whites are smarter than *all* blacks.

It's not racism though; there have been several studies on this subject. You just don't hear about it because: a) People like ithoughti will put their fingers in their ears and say "lalalala" and b) Every politician in support of socialism for the purpose of keeping their powerbase as poor as possible so they can stay in power will pull the race card and call you a racist.

But real racism is "I went to kill all jews and lynch all blacks" or "If you're white we'll make it harder for you to get accepted into this university" (affirmative action on that last one). Pointing out very evident problems in certain cultures and societies, for the purpose of eradication of those problems, is NOT racism. Calling it racism is basically saying "you're a liar, and these problems don't actually exist". But they do exist.

For the subject of Race vs. IQ, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_IQ

To sum it up, here are the average IQ's of a few different races/ethnicities.

Code:


IQ	Race/ethnicity
115	Ashkenazi Jews
105	East asians
99	Europeans
91	Hispanics
91	Inuit
87	African americans
87	Southeast asians and american indians
85	Pacific islanders
84	Middle easterners
67	Subsaharan africans
62	Australian aborigines

You don't see me getting in a hissy fit because scientific studies show that Jews and East Asians are on average smarter than my race. Why don't I care? Because: a) these statistics don't affect me as an individual and b) i know it's not racism.

But when I see things like affirmative action, forced desegregation in schools, minority favoritism in workplaces, then THAT's racism. And there are also tons of double standards, like Kramer calling a guy a nigger while the black guy calls him a "cracker-ass fucking white boy". Guess which one was "an outrage"?

Quote:
The projects in my city are largely not free. In addition, getting a job doesn't increase your rent for 18 months, so you won't be taking in less money just because you started working.

Would you rather sit on your ass and do whatever you want for $10,000 per year, or would you rather work your ass off 40 hours a week for $15,000 per year? Read up on the welfare trap: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_trap.

Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 05/12/2006 21:14

Quote:
Come one Bitt, didn't you know that Jews are more likely to know how to handle money purely because of their parents religious affiliation? This stuff is common knowledge! Seriously... this thread is scary.

Read this.
http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin...5926119779Guest
Study about how stereotypes influence perception of local crime despite the evidence.

and search google for "racial attributes stereotypes" or something similar... and read up.

If you read that first link in my above post:

"At Harvard, for example, Asian American and Jewish students together make up 51% of the student body, though only constituting roughly 6% of the US population."

Coincidence? Racism? No, fact. It's not a myth that Jews held a disproportionately high number of well-paying jobs in pre-WWII Germany. Does that mean we should try to hold them back? Or should we just put them all in gas chambers for being so smart?

Posted by: wfaulk

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 05/12/2006 21:19

Racism is, quite simply, the assumption of a trait based on race. This can range from assuming that black people are lazy to assuming that asian people are smart.

Virtually no race is excused from environment, which can be based on the culture surrounding that race. I'd be very, very, interested in seeing a survey of people raised by adoptive parents of a different race and then comparing those numbers against those of "traditional" families. I seriously doubt we'll ever see such a study, though, because the people who are likely to be interested in this line of study aren't interested in separating race and culture.

Also, I find it seriously hard to believe that the average Australian Aborigine is less than two-thirds as smart as the Australian of European descent living next door. I think that points more to a bias of the test than an accurate assessment of intelligence.

Posted by: wfaulk

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 05/12/2006 21:23

A notable commonality between the Jewish and Asian cultures you're talking about is a strong desire for parental approval. Coincidence?

No one also ever does studies of white-to-white immigration, like Americans in France or Swedes in the US. What would the education rate of second-generation immigrants look like there? Guess what, no one does studies like that because they don't look different enough for anyone to notice.

Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 05/12/2006 21:29

Quote:
Racism is, quite simply, the assumption of a trait based on race. This can range from assuming that black people are lazy to assuming that asian people are smart.

I disagree. I believe that racism is the act of oppressing and ruling other races. Is it racism to assume certain traits such as eye color or hair type if you know only the person's race? Of course not.

But of course, we're talking about behavorial traits. And I agree that culture is the main influence on behavior, but races and cultures usually line up together. Note the difference between "African americans" and "Subsaharan africans" in the IQ studies.

Posted by: wfaulk

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 05/12/2006 21:38

No, that is discrimination. Use your dictionary.

Maybe we should study the intelligence of American rednecks transplanted to the Netherlands.

Posted by: loren

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 05/12/2006 21:45

The correlation between race and intelligence and most other such things is circumstantial and a product of environment, culture, history, oppression, etc, not of skin color. I don't see any convincing evidence that if every race started with a clean slate and was educated equally that one would come out as superior to others... and that likely can't be proved.

Posted by: loren

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 05/12/2006 21:50

Quote:
Coincidence? Racism? No, fact. It's not a myth that Jews held a disproportionately high number of well-paying jobs in pre-WWII Germany. Does that mean we should try to hold them back? Or should we just put them all in gas chambers for being so smart?

No, it means that historically they've had an environment and culture more conducive to higher learning and education.

Yes or No... you are saying that purely based on ethnicity all things else being equal, you think a black American will be less intelligent and have less aptitude to learn than white person?

Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 05/12/2006 21:59

Quote:

Yes or No... you are saying that purely based on ethnicity all things else being equal, you think a black American will be less intelligent and have less aptitude to learn than white person?

No. I think culture is the main influence, and I believe there are problems with black culture.

Now let me ask you... you believe in evolution, right? Yes or no: Do you think it's plausible that whites are more intelligent than blacks, due to whites having migrated north thousands of years ago, and only the more intelligent ones could survive the brutal winter? Natural selection, right?

Posted by: Redrum

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 05/12/2006 22:42

Quote:
Honestly, I can't believe that you're actually arguing the point that black people are stupid and lazy.

I'm completely dumbfounded.

Bitt, I didn’t say that and I’m not going to get into a debate with you because I concede to your higher debating skills.

All I’m saying is there is some truth to racial tendencies. If you don’t want to believe the statistics (you look them up, or infer them from you own life experiences) then so be it. I believe in solid fact and averages.

I am not anti-black or anti any other race. I just have my own opinions about the human animal.

Posted by: loren

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 05/12/2006 22:55

Quote:
Now let me ask you... you believe in evolution, right? Yes or no: Do you think it's plausible that whites are more intelligent than blacks, due to whites having migrated north thousands of years ago, and only the more intelligent ones could survive the brutal winter? Natural selection, right?

Plausibility doesn't make it fact. Yes it's plausible. Though I'm sure that argument would be shot down by an socio-evolutionary scientist, which I am not. By that line of thinking it's also plausible that the "migrating whites" are dumber for migrating North to the cold and not returning where the climate was more hospitable.

The entire point of all of this, as I see it, is that broad generalizations and assumptions based on race, even if you COULD prove that a certain race has more IQ points due purely to race and nothing else, helps none of us in the broader sense of society and only aids ignorance and divisive actions that further race relation problems everywhere. These lines of thinking lead to slavery and genocide. Do you at least see that?

Posted by: wfaulk

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 05/12/2006 22:59

You explicitly said:

Quote:
Why is it such a stretch to say some races (on average) are smarter than others or more inclined to work.

Your clear implication being that you suggest that some races are dumber and/or lazier. I'm unsure how this is not an argument to that point.

Posted by: tfabris

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 05/12/2006 23:07

Quote:
For the subject of Race vs. IQ, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_IQ

It's going to be very hard to convince me that IQ tests are not in any way culturally biased.

Posted by: Robotic

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 06/12/2006 00:34

Quote:
By that line of thinking it's also plausible that the "migrating whites" are dumber for migrating North to the cold and not returning where the climate was more hospitable.

Immediately thought of the guys on Ark B.

/end levity

Posted by: FireFox31

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 06/12/2006 02:13

Quote:
Maybe we should study the intelligence of American rednecks transplanted to the Netherlands.

Nomination for "Quote of the Year". Good one, Bitt. As a lazy upper middle class American who contributes barely anything to society, I'm out of here; this thread is a mess.

Posted by: lectric

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 06/12/2006 03:20

No to get sucked into the race debate, but something tickled me on that wikipedia article.

Quote:
James R. Flynn discovered the Flynn effect, that average IQ scores are increasing worldwide.

Now, IQ is a measure of a person's intellect as compared to the intellect of his peers. A 4 year old child with an IQ of 150 is supposedly as smart as a 6 year old with an IQ of 100. If his IQ were 175, he'd be as smart a a 7 year old. So, how does EVERYONE'S IQ get higher? Impossible by the very nature of the definition of IQ.

Posted by: robricc

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 06/12/2006 04:19

Quote:
But to say that a black man is more likely to commit a crime because he is black is ignorant, racist and wrong.

The very statistics you seem to agree with prove exactly that.

You like calling people ignorant, but I don't think you know what that word means. You like ignoring facts because you don't like the truth they uncover.

Posted by: tonyc

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 06/12/2006 04:45

Quote:

You like calling people ignorant, but I don't think you know what that word means. You like ignoring facts because you don't like the truth they uncover.

It is you who seem to be ignorant of the difference between correlation and causation. Here's some help. In a nutshell, it is a logical fallacy to take statistics correlating crime with skin color and draw the conclusion that someone is more likely to commit a crime *because* of their skin color.

Matt actually addressed this in the post you've selectively quoted from. You'd do well to go back and address the rest of his post.

Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 06/12/2006 04:55

Quote:
WOW. Thanks for the REALLY interesting factual information!!!

Do you think that black people commit crimes BECAUSE THEY ARE BLACK? Those statistics are total bullshit. POOR, disadvantaged, uneducated people commit the majority of the crimes in this country. Now you may want to ask, WHY are so many blacks living in poor areas in this country? Probably because of ignorant fools like you.

Typical liberal retardism. Someone else's failure is magically my fault because I'm successful. Quite the contrary. I'm the one paying their f*cking welfare check everytime they knock-up an unmarried 15 year old. I'm the one paying for their food stamps because they don't feel like getting a job to pay for their own food. If it weren't for me, and the millions of other hard-working americans, the bottom-feeders wouldn't even be alive.

I suppose you also think it's the USA's and Europe's fault that Africa is dirt poor. Every road, bridge, and building in Africa was built by the West. Every drop of modern medicine in Africa comes from the West. Ever noticed how their clothes always match early-1990's fashion styles -- that's cause they were all donated by the West. Who turned South Africa into *the* most successful African country ever -- Western settlers.

Now please explain to me how a poor man's misfortunes are my fault.

Posted by: larry818

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 06/12/2006 05:43

Quote:
Now, IQ is a measure of a person's intellect as compared to the intellect of his peers.

To be fair, IQ is an approval rating by psychiatrists. As an engineer, I'm sure I can write an IQ test that would rate most psychiatrists as morons. The very idea that intelligence can be boiled down to one number is idiotic.

My daughters will never take an IQ test.

Posted by: Schido

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 06/12/2006 08:06

Quote:
I suppose you also think it's the USA's and Europe's fault that Africa is dirt poor

Well, we certainly didn't help:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_justice
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agricultural_subsidies

Quote:
Who turned South Africa into *the* most successful African country ever -- Western settlers.

That's a very bad example, don't you think? Or maybe you think that's the proper way to run a country?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_South_Africa_in_the_apartheid_era

Posted by: tahir

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 06/12/2006 08:34

Interesting turn to this thread, are any of the participants anything other than "white/european" in ethnicity? (If there is such a thing)

Posted by: robricc

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 06/12/2006 11:46

Quote:
Quote:

You like calling people ignorant, but I don't think you know what that word means. You like ignoring facts because you don't like the truth they uncover.

It is you who seem to be ignorant of the difference between correlation and causation. Here's some help. In a nutshell, it is a logical fallacy to take statistics correlating crime with skin color and draw the conclusion that someone is more likely to commit a crime *because* of their skin color.

Yeah, I never said black skin = lust for crime. That's something ithoughti wishes I said. I suppose if what I quoted above was saying "But to say that a black man is more likely to commit a crime is ignorant, racist and wrong.", everything would be fine with you.

Quote:
Matt actually addressed this in the post you've selectively quoted from. You'd do well to go back and address the rest of his post.

Very well then...

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

Quote:
Wow Rob, I like you, but you are saying some really ignorant shit in this thread.

Be prepared to not like me because you and I will never agree.

Quote:
I don't have "White Guilt".

Oh no?

Quote:
And I never said his statistics were not correct in numbers, I disagree with the conclusions that people draw because of them.

I live in the real world where the statistics match exactly what I see happening. I don't have to draw conclusions. People's actions draw them for me.

Quote:
It means NOTHING when you say that "black people commit most crimes" while that may be statistically true...

Being statistically true means it's true.

Quote:
...their commiting of crimes has nothing to do with the color of their skin (in an absolute sense) and almost everything to do with every other reason.

I never said skin color determines how people act. Skin color usually will determine who you hang out with and look up to, and these are usually people of your color.

Blacks often look up to rappers that promote a thug-like lifestyle, drinking constantly, multiple sex partners, and using improper grammar.

At the same time, white kids these days appear to emulate the kids on The OC or Laguna Beach.

Both cases are unfortunate, but I'd rather be facing a bitchy, spoiled kid in a dark alley than someone that idolizes Suge Knight and 50-Cent.

Quote:
Of course, all too often their situation is indirectly influenced because of their color.

If we keep making it easier to live without working, that's never going to change.

Quote:
But to say that a black man is more likely to commit a crime because he is black is ignorant, racist and wrong.

Again, I never said black people commit more crime simply because their skin is black. Of course there are more factors at play.

Quote:
Do you REALLY think that anyone wants to live in a poor neighborhood?

I think I already answered this question in a reply to another one of your posts.

Quote:
and your comment about Asians and others coming to this country and running conveinence stores?? What the hell are you even trying to say?

I think I made it perfectly clear the first time, but I will elaborate. Most people (black or white) would consider working in a convenience store to be a shitty job. I know it varies, but in this area, almost all of these stores are owned by first generation immigrants from India, Pakistan, Philippines, Slavic countries, etc...

It seems to me that many people on welfare would rather not take these types of jobs/opportunities. They're much more comfortable doing nothing all day and getting paid for it.

Quote:
Are you implying that blacks are poor because they are lazy?

If you give anyone enough money to get by (and purchase flashy clothes and bling) for doing nothing, of course they're not going to be motivated to get a real job.

Quote:
Did you think before you sat down at your keyboard?

Yes

Quote:
I don't know if you are trying to be offensive, but it's working on me.

I am what I am. I don't think anything I said is incorrect, but your PC hangups might see things differently. I know when we met, it was about 30-45 minutes west of Boston which happens to be very white. My family and friends live and work in and around New York City. All crimes committed against them have been by black men.

My 85 year old aunt was mugged at knife-point in The Bronx in broad daylight.
My friend was mugged and beaten over the head by a gang of four guys while walking home from work in Edgewater, NJ. He had to go to the hospital.
My family's store in Times Square (a reasonably safe neighborhood) was robbed at gunpoint by a gang of five men during regular business hours. Would you like your Grandfather, aunt and uncle to have a gun in their face?

Posted by: Redrum

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 06/12/2006 12:20

Quote:

The entire point of all of this, as I see it, is that broad generalizations and assumptions based on race, even if you COULD prove that a certain race has more IQ points due purely to race and nothing else, helps none of us in the broader sense of society and only aids ignorance and divisive actions that further race relation problems everywhere. These lines of thinking lead to slavery and genocide. Do you at least see that?

You are correct. What baffles me is how upset people get over the fact that someone has a different belief than they do or draws different conclusions from the same facts. This is something far less tangible than skin color but in the past has caused wars and the deaths of countless people. I guess everyone should just go through life talking about the weather, much safer.

Posted by: ithoughti

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 06/12/2006 13:16

Quote:
. All crimes committed against them have been by black men.

You do realize that if you lived in an all white place, that every crime committed against you would be at the hands of white people.

I'm sorry for your family's unfortunate experiences. You are revealing yourself as a closet racist however. I feel sorry for you.

I don't want to argue about this stuff anymore. But I'm very happy that several of the people on this board that I respect highly, seem to agree with me. I'm not nearly as eloquent as most of them however, and I tend to get a bit more emotional about the subject and resort to name calling. So with that, I'll stop.

Posted by: robricc

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 06/12/2006 13:41

Quote:
You do realize that if you lived in an all white place, that every crime committed against you would be at the hands of white people.

I do live in a largely white community and have had no crimes committed against me.

Quote:
You are revealing yourself as a closet racist however.

It is what it is and it's not going to change.

Quote:
I feel sorry for you.

Please don't.

Posted by: lectric

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 06/12/2006 14:39

I know that I'm gonna give myself a label here, but in New Orleans, there are certainly places in the city that you just don't go to. I'll let you guess the demographics of these areas. New Orleans is now the murder capitol of the US (we just passed Compton because of our drop in population by over half, while the murder rate remains the same). It is extremely evident if you watch the news that the murders are taking place in the same areas. Constantly. Since I moved here, I can only remember one instance of a shootout with police perpetrated by a white guy and he was absolutely certifiable. Yeah, white folks around here will occasionally kill each other, but it's a VERY small percentage.

I do, however, believe that the vast majority of the crime is drug and or gang related. I also believe that it is a cultural problem, not a race problem. More specifically, it's a class problem. Those with almost nothing to lose are far more likely to commit a crime.

In other words, I don't believe that blacks are genetically more prone to violence, however, because of their situation, certain blacks, at least around here, are the ones exhibiting violent behavior. How to fix it? Beats me. If I could figure that out, we could save our society billions if not trillions.

I would also point out another weirdness I've encountered. When I went to college, one of my best friends freshman year was a black guy named Keith. Really cool guy, fun to be around. But something happened sophomore year. If we were hanging out, and another black guy showed up, his attitude toward me completely changed. It was as if he was expected to behave a certain way toward white people. It was..... odd. Especially coming from him, whom I felt I knew well. Shortly after, he joined a black fraternity and he ceased hanging out with me completely. It actually bothered me quite a bit.

That brings me to another point. How is it OK to have a black-only fraternity? Is that not racism right there? If not, then why is it racist to start a white-only fraternity? I'm not trying to bait anyone, but seriously, isn't this causing a deeper rift? I mean, BET is fine, but let there be a WET channel. Whooo, think of the shitstorm.

At my college, you had to score a 19 on the ACT to be accepted if you were white, but a 17 if you were black. Huh? How does that help anyone? Take it a step further, College is tough enough if you're on an even playing field. If you're behind your classmates when you start, you're much more likely to fail. If you fail, now you have a significant amount of debt with nothing to show for it. IMHO, this is NOT helping the guy with a 17 on his ACT. He'd be much better going to a school where the mean ACT score is 16. Meanwhile, there are people that score 19 and better that get rejected because their slots are being filled by people with 17's. That isn't fair to them either. Ah well.

Posted by: frog51

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 06/12/2006 15:58

As a long term member of Mensa, I can honestly say that the testing doesn't prove anything other than one's ability to take Mensa tests.

And most folks I know if asked to come up with a word to describe me probably would not use 'intelligent'

Posted by: wfaulk

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 06/12/2006 16:54

Fine. If your argument is that you want to assume every black man you see is a criminal, feel free.

Personally, I'd be more inclined to base my judgments on things that people have control over, clothing and demeanor being prime criteria. A smart criminal would wear a suit and comport himself well, but criminals are not generally known for their intelligence.

Posted by: robricc

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 06/12/2006 16:56

Quote:
Fine. If your argument is that you want to assume every black man you see is a criminal, feel free.

Did I say that somewhere?

Posted by: wfaulk

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 06/12/2006 16:58

Then what are you saying? You seem to be arguing that assuming a black man is a criminal is more accurate than not.

Posted by: robricc

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 06/12/2006 17:10

Quote:
Then what are you saying? You seem to be arguing that assuming a black man is a criminal is more accurate than not.

That's absolutely not even close to anything I said. If you wanted to draw a conclusion like that it would be more like: A black man is a criminal more often than a white man.

This is all based on the validity of statistics that Billy posted like 10 pages back that nobody seems to have a problem with.

I also found it rather amusing that all of this was started when ithoughti scolded someone for describing someone that could be a thief as "African American." According to him, race should have no part in the description of a person doing a certain act.

Last night he says this:

Quote:
I DARE you to tell my black PhD student gf that her race is inferior to any other race. Go ahead, I DARE you. Ignorant prick.

How dare he describe his girlfriend's race! I AM OUTRAGED!!!!!!!!!

I guess describing someone's race is ok when the action being taken (in this case, getting a PhD) is anything but a crime.

Posted by: wfaulk

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 06/12/2006 17:30

Fine. Whatever. I'm done arguing with you racist bastards.

Posted by: Redrum

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 06/12/2006 17:55

Quote:
Fine. Whatever. I'm done arguing with you racist bastards.

I thought racist bastards were the "name callers." Seems around here it’s the other way around.

Whatever happened to - I don't agree with you but I respect your right to your opinion.

It also seems that around here people think less of you if you don’t agree with them.

Diversity is truly not accepted here. What is expected is that someone posts something and everyone else says “Yea, that’s right” heaven forbid if you say otherwise. OK lets all lock step march… L,R, L, R

Oh yea, I might fit your definition of a racist but I’m not a bastard. I was born after my parents (who were of the opposite sex) married in a church that worships God. I might as well hit all the sore spots

Posted by: Dignan

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 06/12/2006 18:38

Quote:
I mean, BET is fine, but let there be a WET channel.

Have you ever watched HGTV?

Your story about the friend who joined the frat is exactly like a story my father told me last night. He said that when he was in college (in the 60's/70's), he knew one black guy (this is American University, which at the time was only beginning to become a little less conservative). My dad really liked the guy, and was trying to get him to join the frat, but the guy wasn't permitted. Why? Because all his black friends didn't let him. He would have been ostracized. So the guy joined the black frat and my dad never saw him again.

It's sad. That's a missed opportunity.

Posted by: lectric

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 06/12/2006 18:49

Quote:
Have you ever watched HGTV?

Thankfully, no!

Posted by: visuvius

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 06/12/2006 20:03

I just read that article on the History of Apartheid in South Africa. Holy God whitey did some fucked up things to the blacks. I knew this before as well but when you read some of this stuff it really opens up your eyes.

If the problems of the African Americans in the U.S. aren't fixed within the next 200 years, I would still understand. The disgust and outrage at the behavior of some black people in this thread would make sense 200 years from now. The white race (mostly the white race) spent more than 400 years dominating and destroying the social fabric of the black race, you guys expect them to get back to normal within 50 years?? Is that fair?

We're barely 40 years past the civil rights movement. How the hell can some of you guys expect an entire race that has been so royally fucked by the white race to get its act back together so quickly. 40 years ago you were sitll making them sit in the back of the bus. 40 years really isn't that long ago in the grande scheme of things.

Hmmm, I wonder why no one tells the American Indians to get their acts together. Probably cause some of your ancestors didn't leave enough of them around for it to matter.

Posted by: larry818

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 07/12/2006 04:22

Quote:
As a long term member of Mensa, I can honestly say that the testing doesn't prove anything other than one's ability to take Mensa tests.

And most folks I know if asked to come up with a word to describe me probably would not use 'intelligent'

Ha, my friends call me "the arrogant oracle".

One summer a girlfriend's mom, who was taking psych, asked me to take IQ tests for her. She had about 10 different kinds she had to give to about 20 people. I ende up taking the same tests for about 20 of her classmates, so I took about 200 IQ tests that summer. Depending on the test, my mood, or hangover, I scored between 80 and 230. Man, that's repeatable....

Also amazing that one can score higher than 200 on a test that maxes out at 200...

Posted by: frog51

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 07/12/2006 09:23

Hahahaha - nice. IQ test as an indicator of party quality the night before. I like it!

Stop! Thief!!

Stop! Thief!! - 20/11/2006 22:33

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 20/11/2006 22:45

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 20/11/2006 23:07

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 20/11/2006 23:25

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 21/11/2006 00:01

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 21/11/2006 01:36

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 21/11/2006 03:20

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 21/11/2006 04:38

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 21/11/2006 04:39

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 21/11/2006 07:26

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 21/11/2006 08:10

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 21/11/2006 13:12

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 21/11/2006 13:33

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 21/11/2006 13:46

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 21/11/2006 14:09

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 21/11/2006 14:17

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 21/11/2006 16:20

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 21/11/2006 17:28

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 21/11/2006 17:49

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 21/11/2006 17:50

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 21/11/2006 21:28

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 21/11/2006 22:09

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 22/11/2006 00:01

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 22/11/2006 00:10

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 22/11/2006 00:54

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 22/11/2006 03:06

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 22/11/2006 03:34

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 23/11/2006 03:01

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 23/11/2006 03:30

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 23/11/2006 03:48

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 23/11/2006 03:49

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 23/11/2006 03:55

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 23/11/2006 04:15

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 23/11/2006 04:21

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 23/11/2006 04:21

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 23/11/2006 04:41

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 23/11/2006 04:42

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 23/11/2006 04:46

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 23/11/2006 04:51

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 23/11/2006 04:53

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 23/11/2006 04:58

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 23/11/2006 05:00

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 23/11/2006 05:01

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 23/11/2006 05:06

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 23/11/2006 05:11

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 23/11/2006 05:13

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 23/11/2006 05:16

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 23/11/2006 05:17

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 23/11/2006 05:20

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 23/11/2006 05:24

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 23/11/2006 05:28

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 23/11/2006 05:28

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 23/11/2006 05:33

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 23/11/2006 07:51

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 23/11/2006 10:13

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 23/11/2006 11:17

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 23/11/2006 11:36

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 23/11/2006 14:59

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 23/11/2006 22:22

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 24/11/2006 02:39

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 24/11/2006 02:45

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 24/11/2006 04:30

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 24/11/2006 07:48

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 24/11/2006 12:50

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 24/11/2006 13:34

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 24/11/2006 15:47

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 24/11/2006 21:22

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 25/11/2006 14:49

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 25/11/2006 19:01

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 25/11/2006 21:38

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 28/11/2006 01:43

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 28/11/2006 03:48

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 28/11/2006 06:29

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 28/11/2006 10:42

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 28/11/2006 12:46

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 28/11/2006 13:07

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 28/11/2006 13:16

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 28/11/2006 13:57

Re: Stop! Thief!! - 28/11/2006 14:08