Terrorized Americans

[OrneryMod]

Link to the topic on the old forums.

[Pete at Home]

Wayward: "Any Muslim coming into this country are in more danger from us than we are from them! "

By "them" aren't you equating Muslim immigrants to terrorists? Or are you falsely assuming that immigrants don't commit ordinary nonterroristic violent crime?

[Wayward Son]

People--especially certain politicians--are equating Muslims with terrorists.  They are saying that allowing women and children into this country who are Muslim constitutes allowing in dangerous people.  I forget who said that it's like eating a barrel of apples when you know there is a bad apple in it.

So, no, I'm not the one who is saying that Muslims per se are dangerous.

There is, of course, some chance that one of the refugees could be a terrorist.  The probability is not zero.  So you have to weigh that danger against the benefits.

But you have to weigh that danger against our current level of risk.  And we live in a dangerous country.

In 2012, over 14,000 people in the U.S. were murdered, according to one source I saw.  Over 9,000 by firearms.  Our urban hospitals treat dozens of assault victims every month, if not every week.  On a day-to-day basis, we attack and kill each other at a rate that is only exceeded by countries in the midst of war.

The people we would let in--these Muslim refugees--are not used to this level of violence under normal circumstances.  Sure, they are fleeing a higher level of violence--bombs, "soldiers" with guns, organized mayhem and murder--but not from their next-door neighbors.  Not from the guy down the street.  Not in normal circumstances.

Not like here.

Once they arrive here, they have to get used to the idea that someone might attack them just because they look funny, or said something wrong, or because the other guy is having a bad day.  That someone might go postal.  That they are caught between two warring gangs.  Because the guy down the street became upset because their dog was peeing on their lawn.

Check the news.  Examples are there every single day.

So we have these chicken-***t politicians who are terrified of Muslim refugees, who are scared that these women and children will come and kill us, while representing constituents who are busy killing each other at a rate that far exceeds the likely rate that any given group of Muslims would inflict on us.  Some, in fact, who will fight tooth and nail to make sure that people who will use guns to kill other people are guaranteed a right to get those guns with as little problem as possible.  And they have the gall to call Muslims dangerous! 

So, no, I'm not equating Muslims with terrorists.  I'm saying that the average American, a random guy who could grab off the street at any given moment, is probably more dangerous than the random refugee we would let into our country after we vetted them for a year or two.  And that the only reason these politicians are afraid of these refugees is because they are either too stupid to realize how dangerous a country they live in or because they are too bigoted to see that most people are more peaceful than Americans.

So who is more of a danger to whom?

[Pete at Home]

You missed my point. 

"Once they arrive here, they have to get used to the idea that someone might attack them just because they look funny, or said something wrong, or because the other guy is having a bad day.  That someone might go postal.  That they are caught between two warring gangs.  Because the guy down the street became upset because their dog was peeing on their lawn."

You assume that Muslims never do violence for those reasons. You assume that terrorism is the only sort of violence that these immigrants are capable of.  I suggest you look at crime reports from the UK France and Scandinavia. Your description is naive.  Immigrants are nearly always more prone to violent crime than the host locals.

[Pyrtolin]

You assume that Muslims never do violence for those reasons.

On what basis do you make the claim? That he didn't comment on something that's completely irrelevant to the risk of terrorism? He didn't assume that at all, he was just talking about something else so it wasn't relevant.

[Fenring]

You assume that Muslims never do violence for those reasons.

On what basis do you make the claim? That he didn't comment on something that's completely irrelevant to the risk of terrorism? He didn't assume that at all, he was just talking about something else so it wasn't relevant.

WS said that refugees coming to America are more at risk from Americans than Americans are from them. The basis for this claim was the murder rate in the U.S. Pete's point is that WS seems to be excluding the refugees from potentially adding to the crime rate and is instead treating them as if they will merely be passively subjected to violence in America.

Pete is therefore talking about the possibility of refugees adding to the crime rate in this instance, and not about their potential for terrorism. If, for example, the crime or murder rate of refugees is equivalent to the average for America then it would be incorrect to frame the situation as them being at risk from American violence. It would at the very least require a phrasing like "at risk from Americans and from themselves." WS would have to show that such refugees would be less prone to crime than Americans to demonstrate that refugees coming to America are being significantly endangered in America. That being said I'm not sure how Pete calculates the relative risk of crime from refugees versus 'regular' crime among Americans in order to make his counter-claim.

[Pyrtolin]

WS said that refugees coming to America are more at risk from Americans than Americans are from them. The basis for this claim was the murder rate in the U.S. Pete's point is that WS seems to be excluding the refugees from potentially adding to the crime rate and is instead treating them as if they will merely be passively subjected to violence in America.

At which point there aren't enough of them, even if their relatively poorer position means that they have higher regular crime rates, to raise much of a threat. Heck, they're as much of a threat to themselves at that point.  Sheer population volume alone means that the hate crime rate, even if it's relatively low by percent of perpetrators in the population, is going to be much higher than the general crime rate that they end up contributing to, which is already pretty much baked in regardless of where refugees or immigrants that we accept come from.

A 10% crime rate among 100 people against a 1% crime rate among 10000 people means that the latter is still perpetrating more overall crime and represents a larger threat than the smaller group does.

[Wayward Son]

That is a good point, Pete.  Refugees could be as violent as the "average" American (i.e. as a group have the same percentage of violence as the current U.S. percentage), especially if they are thrown into situations that promote such violence (e.g. slums).  So you could be right, and my statement could be wrong.

But it still does not invalidate my primary point: that Muslim refugees from Syria will not significantly increase the likelihood of murder in this country.  If they only have the same level of violence as we have, it will be a wash.  And to deny 10,000 needy people because of the possibility of one or two who might make the U.S. as dangerous as it currently is is both heartless and cowardly.

We still have no more to fear from them that we have to fear from ourselves.

[Seriati]

There is, of course, some chance that one of the refugees could be a terrorist.  The probability is not zero.  So you have to weigh that danger against the benefits.

There's is a chance, and the probability is closer to 100, that the refugees will have cultural incompatibilities with our culture.  There is also a chance, between zero and 100 that they will pass those incompatibilities on to their children. 

But you have to weigh that danger against our current level of risk.  And we live in a dangerous country.

They started in a more dangerous country, you have to weigh that as well.

And we don't live in a particularly dangerous country.  As you should recall from the prior thread, unless they join a gang their risk of being killed by anyone other than their own family members (which they bring with them) is tiny.

In 2012, over 14,000 people in the U.S. were murdered, according to one source I saw.  Over 9,000 by firearms.

The "source" you saw, or the source it quoted is the FBI, and the number they report is not "murders".  It counts things that are not murder, like self defense in that total.

Our urban hospitals treat dozens of assault victims every month, if not every week.  On a day-to-day basis, we attack and kill each other at a rate that is only exceeded by countries in the midst of war.

First of all "we" don't attack each other.  A tiny percentage of the population is routinely involved in violent crime, generally targeting the same percentage of the population and those in their immediate vicinity.  If you want to argue that there are places in Detroit, for example, that are less safe than a war zone, feel free, but it's just a false and misleading statement to extrapolate that to 99% of the rest of the country.

The people we would let in--these Muslim refugees--are not used to this level of violence under normal circumstances.  Sure, they are fleeing a higher level of violence--bombs, "soldiers" with guns, organized mayhem and murder--but not from their next-door neighbors.  Not from the guy down the street.  Not in normal circumstances.

Which is immaterially since virtually none of the 300 million people who already live here are used to that level of violence either.  Nor are they generally concerned about their next door neighbor, or the guy down the street.

Not like here.

Where exactly?

Once they arrive here, they have to get used to the idea that someone might attack them just because they look funny, or said something wrong, or because the other guy is having a bad day.  That someone might go postal.  That they are caught between two warring gangs.  Because the guy down the street became upset because their dog was peeing on their lawn.

Its utterly bizarre to me that you believe they come from a "place" where there isn't a knowledge of human on human crime.  They were very aware of the risks they faced in their every day lives, and had to deal with suppression and repression on top of that. 

Check the news.  Examples are there every single day.

And?  The news has a terrible selection bias towards exciting, violent and scary stories.

So who is more of a danger to whom?

Refugees from a radically dissimilar culture are more of a danger to us, than we are to them.  In fact, the entire premise of your argument relies on them adopting and their children adopting our more "enlightened" positions on equal rights and western liberties to even make sense.  Generally speaking we're a good thing for them on a net basis.  How could that ever make them not the more dangerous?

[Wayward Son]

There's is a chance, and the probability is closer to 100, that the refugees will have cultural incompatibilities with our culture.  There is also a chance, between zero and 100 that they will pass those incompatibilities on to their children.

And there's a chance that your next-door neighbor has incompatibilities with your culture.  There's a 100% chance that someone in the next town has such incompatibilities.  Get used to it.  You've had your entire life. 

They started in a more dangerous country, you have to weigh that as well.

It became more dangerous.  That's why they decided to get the hell out.

The "source" you saw, or the source it quoted is the FBI, and the number they report is not "murders".  It counts things that are not murder, like self defense in that total.

You got a better source?  Let's see it.  Is it significantly lower?

First of all "we" don't attack each other.  A tiny percentage of the population is routinely involved in violent crime, generally targeting the same percentage of the population and those in their immediate vicinity.  If you want to argue that there are places in Detroit, for example, that are less safe than a war zone, feel free, but it's just a false and misleading statement to extrapolate that to 99% of the rest of the country.

And if you haven't checked lately, they are all Americans.  So get used to it.  They are our people.  They are your people.  They are Americans.

Which is immaterially since virtually none of the 300 million people who already live here are used to that level of violence either.  Nor are they generally concerned about their next door neighbor, or the guy down the street.

And why is there an open-carry movement?  Are they concerned about bear attacks?

Where exactly?

Where most Americans live.

The news has a terrible selection bias towards exciting, violent and scary stories.

Yes, like the overly-exaggerated threat of terrorism from strange foreigners.

Refugees from a radically dissimilar culture are more of a danger to us, than we are to them.

A ridiculous premise if I ever heard one.  Refugees are fleeing danger.  You think they like it?  You think they're a part of it?  Then why leave?

These are people who want to be safe and secure.

In fact, the entire premise of your argument relies on them adopting and their children adopting our more "enlightened" positions on equal rights and western liberties to even make sense.  Generally speaking we're a good thing for them on a net basis.  How could that ever make them not the more dangerous?

They will learn to fit in with the culture they are living in.  All immigrants and refugees of the past have done so.  They will change America by their presence, but so will we change them.  It's a two-way street that has been going on for hundreds of years, since before this nation was founded.  Why are you so afraid of it?

[Pete at Home]

Americans have always been scared of immigrants, with good reason. Just ask a native. 

[Seriati]

There's is a chance, and the probability is closer to 100, that the refugees will have cultural incompatibilities with our culture.  There is also a chance, between zero and 100 that they will pass those incompatibilities on to their children.

And there's a chance that your next-door neighbor has incompatibilities with your culture.  There's a 100% chance that someone in the next town has such incompatibilities.  Get used to it.  You've had your entire life. 

Lol, and if that neighbor condemns homosexuality (westboro Baptists) or lectures on racial superiority (KKK) or even just implies that women should be considered less than men, we'll all condemn him and ostracize him.  Yet, if he happens to be an immigrant who holds most or all of those views because they are the absolute norm in his original country, and he believes some of them are tied to religious truth, then you'll criticize me for being intolerant of him.  And you don't see the problem here? 

They started in a more dangerous country, you have to weigh that as well.

It became more dangerous.  That's why they decided to get the hell out.

It was more dangerous before they decided to get out for many many people that share our ideals.  How was it to be openly homosexual there before it "got bad"?  To be a free spoken woman?  To live with your boyfriend, or even to date and kiss him in public?    Why do you insist on pretending that these are not significant differences?

The "source" you saw, or the source it quoted is the FBI, and the number they report is not "murders".  It counts things that are not murder, like self defense in that total.

You got a better source?  Let's see it.  Is it significantly lower?

I didn't say there was a better source, to my knowledge there's the FBI numbers, the CDC numbers and a bunch of guesses made with varying degrees of rationality.  But, that doesn't mean you can cite the numbers to stand for something other than what they are.  You're mis-using the source, period.

First of all "we" don't attack each other.  A tiny percentage of the population is routinely involved in violent crime, generally targeting the same percentage of the population and those in their immediate vicinity.  If you want to argue that there are places in Detroit, for example, that are less safe than a war zone, feel free, but it's just a false and misleading statement to extrapolate that to 99% of the rest of the country.

And if you haven't checked lately, they are all Americans.  So get used to it.  They are our people.  They are your people.  They are Americans.

And?  Did I say they weren't?  Pretending that there is no differentiation within the category of American is absurd.  Did you listen - at all - for instance to the Black Lives matter protesters?  You're erasing everyone's individuality and perspective just to make a dubious point.

Why not make the actual case and explain, how for the 99% who are  already safe your claim still makes sense?  Or any real risk is added to the refugees' safety if we settle them anywhere but in downtown Detroit.

And why is there an open-carry movement?  Are they concerned about bear attacks?

There is an open carry movement for several reasons, but the one I think is the most rationale is simple.  The media, and the gun hating members of the left, have gone to extremes to instill fear of guns into the American psyche to make it easier to make the case to ban them.  Responsible open carry directly unwinds that fear, much in the same way that one of the easiest ways to make improvements in active racist thinking was to expose racists directly to minorities in ways that they could get to know them and start to see their prejudices were unwarranted.

Where exactly?

Where most Americans live.

Honestly, provide facts to support that most Americans live in neighborhoods that were more dangerous that dictator-rule Syria, where personal freedoms were strained at best.

The news has a terrible selection bias towards exciting, violent and scary stories.

Yes, like the overly-exaggerated threat of terrorism from strange foreigners.

That's true too of course.

Refugees from a radically dissimilar culture are more of a danger to us, than we are to them.

A ridiculous premise if I ever heard one.  Refugees are fleeing danger.  You think they like it?  You think they're a part of it?  Then why leave?

If a bear flees a forest fire, does that mean that a bear isn't dangerous to let into your house?  Try to use some logic here.  No one disputes they are fleeing from danger, that has zero bearing on whether they are dangerous to us, or whether their culture is compatible with ours.

These are people who want to be safe and secure.

So are the citizens here, and unlike the fleeing refugees it is the direct responsibility of the US government to see to the safety and security of the citizens here.

They will learn to fit in with the culture they are living in.  All immigrants and refugees of the past have done so.  They will change America by their presence, but so will we change them.  It's a two-way street that has been going on for hundreds of years, since before this nation was founded.  Why are you so afraid of it?

Because, you have to completely ignore how our culture has changed to make the claim.  We are no longer a melting pot, where the goal is to integrate diverse peoples into a single culture.  Our view of victimhood and cultural sensitivity has irrevocably altered that.  It's beyond hypocritical to simultaneously claim that such will occur, while also celebrating and valuing diversity.

They will integrate on some factors, but they will not on others.  Where those factors are linked, or even arguably linked, to religion they will be even less likely to integrate.  I can't tell if you're being disingenuous or naïve with this argument, can you clarify if you really believe it?

[AI Wessex]

The media, and the gun hating members of the left, have gone to extremes to instill fear of guns into the American psyche to make it easier to make the case to ban them.

This is the utterly opaque view, sometimes paranoid, that makes up a lot of the backbone of the resistance to considering any changes to laws that would reduce the potential for gun violence in this country.  I personally would like there to be far fewer guns floating around our country and think additional laws governing access and ownership of guns would help tremendously and are sorely needed.  I know many people who would agree about the need for additional laws, but not a single one of them is a gun hater, not all are "of the left", none have "gone to extremes to instill fear of guns into the American psyche" or want "to ban them".  I'd say you should get your facts straight, but your viewpoint doesn't have any facts to dispute.  You framed a perfect example of a FOX argument by insisting that if anyone fails to share your point of view, they are a threat to you and your way of life.  Good job.

[Seriati]

The media, and the gun hating members of the left, have gone to extremes to instill fear of guns into the American psyche to make it easier to make the case to ban them.

This is the utterly opaque view, sometimes paranoid, that makes up a lot of the backbone of the resistance to considering any changes to laws that would reduce the potential for gun violence in this country.

Really?  How many parents on the left do you know that won't buy their children a toy gun?  Even ones that could never be mistaken for real guns?  I know parents who won't let their kids have a squirt gun.  Who claim its morally wrong. 

There is an active campaign to make the presence of guns a social bad.

I personally would like there to be far fewer guns floating around our country and think additional laws governing access and ownership of guns would help tremendously and are sorely needed.

I'd personally like there to be fewer people on the left calling for the dismantling of our civil rights.  I don't see any net gain from more laws with respect to guns, I could see gains from eliminating the dumber ones (assault rifle bans) and altering the ones that have been shown to be ineffective.

I know many people who would agree about the need for additional laws, but not a single one of them is a gun hater, not all are "of the left", none have "gone to extremes to instill fear of guns into the American psyche" or want "to ban them".

Not a single one?  Lol, you can't be honest on a message board?  Not one single hater, or person who wants to ban them.  Don't know why I try to talk to you in good faith.

I'd say you should get your facts straight, but your viewpoint doesn't have any facts to dispute.  You framed a perfect example of a FOX argument by insisting that if anyone fails to share your point of view, they are a threat to you and your way of life.  Good job.

I do believe that anyone who fails to understand the importance of our civil rights, owning guns, freedom of speech, privacy, et all is a threat to my way of life, and really to the way of life of all Americans.  This country is different because of these rights, and not because of any special enlightenment that will survive their destruction.

[AI Wessex]

There is an active campaign to make the presence of guns a social bad.

Does calling guns a "social bad" mean that the person hates them?  How about fears, disapproves, worries...?  Does finding one person out of a thousand who wants more gun laws who does hate them make the sweeping generalization apply to everyone?  If so, I could come up with a dozen reasons why Republicans hate the poor, hate teachers, hate blacks, hate hispanics, hate Jews, hate Muslims, hate Europeans, hate Arabs....you name 'em, they hate 'em.

I'd personally like there to be fewer people on the left calling for the dismantling of our civil rights.

One of the things that characterizes "the left" is that they champion civil rights.  Just think of the group that conservatives love to hate more than any other, the ACLU.  Unless you think that championing and defending civil rights is an infringement on your rights not to recognize those of others.

Not a single one?  Lol, you can't be honest on a message board?  Not one single hater, or person who wants to ban them.  Don't know why I try to talk to you in good faith.

Which explains why I so often think you live in a fantasy world where what you see out your window isn't real.

I do believe that anyone who fails to understand the importance of our civil rights, owning guns, freedom of speech, privacy, et all is a threat to my way of life, and really to the way of life of all Americans.  This country is different because of these rights, and not because of any special enlightenment that will survive their destruction.

I'm sure you imagine that you make that offer with no hidden bias, but if you did you would have to concede that you will have to change some of your points of view. 

[Pete at Home]

"This is the utterly opaque view, sometimes paranoid, that makes up a lot of the backbone of the resistance to considering any changes to laws that would reduce the potential for gun violence in this country"

There you go again with the same old lie.   You have been caught in that web of falsehoods before.  As established the last two times that you made that false accusation.  Once again, even if we accept your unsupported assumption gun control actually will reduce gun violence, it still would not follow that taking away constitutional gun rights is the ONLY way to reduce gun violence.

In previous arguments you demanded, received, and failed to respond to alternative ways to reduce gun violence. Mist notably, PROVIDE PSYCIATRIC CARE AND MEDS for the mentally ill.  Your failure to address these options while pretending that anyone that has qualms about gun control refuses to do ANYTHING about gun violence is the nadir of intellectual dishonest grave dancing corpsploitation.

[Seriati]

I'd personally like there to be fewer people on the left calling for the dismantling of our civil rights.

One of the things that characterizes "the left" is that they champion civil rights.  Just think of the group that conservatives love to hate more than any other, the ACLU.

Rather than continue to go in circles, I'm going to offer up a correction to what I think you read.  I did not say the left hated guns, I said gun hating members of the left.  There is a difference in construction that was intentional and meaningful.

But I also want to address your assumption that the left is a champion of civil rights.  That's a reputation that is no longer true.  Assaults from the left on the first amendment (freedom of religion and freedom of speech), the second amendment (gun control), fourth amendment (NSA spying - though honestly this is both the left and the right to my great repugnance), fifth amendment (calls to skip or set aside grand juries in Ferguson, to jail climate change dissenters, and both sides expansion of eminent domain), sixth amendment (though I agree with rape shield laws, some are undeniable violations), eighth amendment (excessive fine strategy connected with regulations of disfavored behaviors - look at cigarettes and gas taxes), not to mention accepting that the federal government can force you to buy a commercial product from a private party.  There's no truth anymore to the idea that either party is a champion of civil rights.

Not a single one?  Lol, you can't be honest on a message board?  Not one single hater, or person who wants to ban them.  Don't know why I try to talk to you in good faith.

Which explains why I so often think you live in a fantasy world where what you see out your window isn't real.

So you're doubling down on what, not knowing a single gun hater or gun banner, or are you asserting that they don't exist?  Frankly, I don't believe either, but the second is demonstrably false.

I do believe that anyone who fails to understand the importance of our civil rights, owning guns, freedom of speech, privacy, et all is a threat to my way of life, and really to the way of life of all Americans.  This country is different because of these rights, and not because of any special enlightenment that will survive their destruction.

I'm sure you imagine that you make that offer with no hidden bias, but if you did you would have to concede that you will have to change some of your points of view.

What offer?

I change points of view all the time, but I generally do it based on logical arguments.  I'm not likely to be terribly swayed in areas where I have spent substantial time studying and working through the issues.  I'm a pretty smart person, it takes a lot to present a novel view in a well trodden area. 

[Fenring]

Let's not forget the War on Drugs and the level of poverty in America. Only someone delusional would think they could boil gun violence down purely to the existence of guns without including these areas. Would eliminating poverty and terrible drug laws lead to a reduction in gun violence? How much gun violence is proportionally to do with gangs, altercations with the police, suicide, and other poverty or drug-related issues?

If we dealt with these far more critical areas and the level of gun deaths remained high we could talk reasonably about having narrowed down that maybe the guns themselves are the problem after all. Right now it's more like a conceptual war where many people on the left accept as an unassailable premise that gun ownership is an evil in itself. I see enough Facebook posts about it regularly to know it isn't just some tiny minority of people who feel that way, it's a trending active political idea.

[AI Wessex]

Pete: In previous arguments you demanded, received, and failed to respond to alternative ways to reduce gun violence. Mist notably, PROVIDE PSYCIATRIC CARE AND MEDS for the mentally ill.  Your failure to address these options while pretending that anyone that has qualms about gun control refuses to do ANYTHING about gun violence is the nadir of intellectual dishonest grave dancing corpsploitation.

On the contrary, I have engaged in several threads on the topic of the relationship of guns to violence and offered very detailed suggestions on how to address it.  That you either don't remember any of that or choose to ignore and forget it because it doesn't fit your view of things is entirely your problem rather than mine.

Seriati: I did not say the left hated guns, I said gun hating members of the left.  There is a difference in construction that was intentional and meaningful.

Yes, as if by using the clever wording doesn't imply that the left hates guns.  I'll revise my construction to say poor hating, teacher hating, black hating, hispanic hating, Jew hating, Muslim hating, European hating, Arab hating Republicans.  Of course I'm not saying every Republican hates everybody in those categories of people, so don't think I believe that the Republicans hate poor people, teachers, blacks, hispanics, Jews, Muslims, Europeans or Arabs.

So you're doubling down on what, not knowing a single gun hater or gun banner, or are you asserting that they don't exist?  Frankly, I don't believe either, but the second is demonstrably false.

Like I said, I'm sure there is at least one in every thousand who do hate.  Why talk about such a tiny fraction of a large group who are concerned about the prevalence of guns and gun violence instead of the vast majority who are thoughtful and as logical as you are?

I change points of view all the time, but I generally do it based on logical arguments.  I'm not likely to be terribly swayed in areas where I have spent substantial time studying and working through the issues.  I'm a pretty smart person, it takes a lot to present a novel view in a well trodden area.

No doubt, but why then to you amplify the very unrepresentative set of people "on the left" who hate guns?  Have you ever seen someone kill an armed person because they hated them for carrying a weapon?  That's a tactic used by people who hate doctors who perform abortions and kill them for it, or hate Planned Parenthood for providing abortion counseling and burn down their offices, or hate gays and beat them up or murder them for being gay, or hate Muslims and burn down their mosques, or hate blacks and try to start a race war or burn down their churches.  How many of those people are "on the left"?

[Pete at Home]

Pete: In previous arguments you demanded, received, and failed to respond to alternative ways to reduce gun violence. Mist notably, PROVIDE PSYCIATRIC CARE AND MEDS for the mentally ill.  Your failure to address these options while pretending that anyone that has qualms about gun control refuses to do ANYTHING about gun violence is the nadir of intellectual dishonest grave dancing corpsploitation.

On the contrary, I have engaged in several threads on the topic of the relationship of guns to violence and offered very detailed suggestions on how to address it.  That you either don't remember any of that or choose to ignore and forget it because [motive speculation]

You fancy you can read my mind when you just proved you didn't even read my post.  Try again. Think harder.

You claimed that gun rights advocates weren't willing to do ANYTHING to reduce gun violence.  Fenring and I reminded sou of several things that gun rights advocates are willing to do to reduce gun violence.  So your accusation is false. Mental health care would obviously reduce gun violence.  So your accusation is false.

[AI Wessex]

Pete: In previous arguments you demanded, received, and failed to respond to alternative ways to reduce gun violence. Mist notably, PROVIDE PSYCIATRIC CARE AND MEDS for the mentally ill.  Your failure to address these options while pretending that anyone that has qualms about gun control refuses to do ANYTHING about gun violence is the nadir of intellectual dishonest grave dancing corpsploitation.

On the contrary, I have engaged in several threads on the topic of the relationship of guns to violence and offered very detailed suggestions on how to address it.  That you either don't remember any of that or choose to ignore and forget it because [motive speculation]

You fancy you can read my mind when you just proved you didn't even read my post.  Try again. Think harder.

You claimed that gun rights advocates weren't willing to do ANYTHING to reduce gun violence.  Fenring and I reminded sou of several things that gun rights advocates are willing to do to reduce gun violence.  So your accusation is false. Mental health care would obviously reduce gun violence.  So your accusation is false.

No, Pete.  I have advocated a number of things related to medical and mental health changes.  I've also suggested keeping better track of who has bought guns and re-registering guns every few years.  Those are just a few things I think would help.  Every single one of them has been stymied by state and federal legislatures.  I suppose it's nice to know that a schizophrenic ex-felon convicted of murder who is on the terrorist watch list can buy an unlimited number of guns in some states.  Let's make sure to keep it that way and then blame people who really want things to change for whining after each new report of gun killings.

[AI Wessex]

But I also want to address your assumption that the left is a champion of civil rights.  That's a reputation that is no longer true.  Assaults from the left on the first amendment (freedom of religion and freedom of speech), the second amendment (gun control), fourth amendment (NSA spying - though honestly this is both the left and the right to my great repugnance), fifth amendment (calls to skip or set aside grand juries in Ferguson, to jail climate change dissenters, and both sides expansion of eminent domain), sixth amendment (though I agree with rape shield laws, some are undeniable violations), eighth amendment (excessive fine strategy connected with regulations of disfavored behaviors - look at cigarettes and gas taxes), not to mention accepting that the federal government can force you to buy a commercial product from a private party.  There's no truth anymore to the idea that either party is a champion of civil rights.

This is a facile and right-sided argument, even though you point the finger at some on the right in a few of your examples.  My comments:

* Show me an example of the left assaulting freedom of religion and/or speech.  If you are referring to Kim Davis, you are framing exactly the kind of funhouse mirror objection I complained about.  The left doesn't want a thrice-divorced lowly bureaucratic functionary to deny rights of others to marry within their legal rights to do so simply because *she* has a religious objection to them marrying. If she weren't such a laughable messenger, what she did would be even more maddening.

* 4A spying?  You'll have to spell out for me what your objection is.  There is a point to be had here, but I want to understand if you are exaggerating to make one, instead.

* The 5A and Ferguson.  If I understand your concern you are saying that only the left is concerned that police might be getting aware with murder of blacks.  You're quite content with the finding of the Brown GJ not to press charges.  Are you ok with the proven and reprehensible long-standing oppression of blacks by the Ferguson police?  If not, would you suspect there might be any cause for concern about how the GJ was managed by the city?

* Explain when the left said they wanted to jail climate change deniers.  Are you concerned that the only semi-organized and official political body in the world that disbelieves that there is a man-made cause to global warming is the US Republican Party?  Every other country in the world that I know of accepts it as a fact.  The scientists who "deny" it are few and far between.  Many of them wear tin foil helmets to keep people from stealing their thoughts.

* You oppose taxing certain goods differently than others, I gather.  Why are cigarette or gas taxes a sign of taxing a disfavored behavior?  We have had taxes on both types of commodities (and many others) for decades, and both parties are equally "complicit" in their assessment.

* Your last one is the well-worn complaint about Obamacare.  Don't forget that the government also forces companies large and small to act in certain ways.  State and federal laws require you to purchase other things, too.  For instance, you *have* to buy car insurance if you want to drive.  You have to pay taxes if you own certain types of property.  You have to inoculate your children in most states if you send them to school.  Not everyone can buy guns; those who do have to register them; you can't buy every kind of gun or as many as you would like.  It would be easier to list what you aren't required to buy or do.  Are any of those restrictions or requirements acceptable to you?

Your final point that these things are all proof that neither party is a champion of civil rights is total misdirection.  A good working definition of civil rights would be: "the rights of citizens to political and social freedom and equality."  Since when are taxes a matter of civil rights?  Smoke or drive all you want.

Basically, you've provided a litany of Republican talking points, which really are nothing more than anti-Democratic talking points.  More generally, you're conflating some actions of the Democratic Party (sometimes jointly with those of the Republican Party) with a philosophical "left".  You'll have to define what you think "left" is, as I think you're really missing the mark on that, too.

[Pete at Home]

This is Al pretending to respond to what I said:

"No, Pete.  I have advocated a number of things related to medical and mental health changes"

This would be an honest response if I had said Al had proposed to do nothing about mental health. 

[AI Wessex]

Pete, you constantly befuddle me.  You wrote above about me:

In previous arguments you demanded, received, and failed to respond to alternative ways to reduce gun violence. Mist notably, PROVIDE PSYCIATRIC CARE AND MEDS for the mentally ill.  Your failure to address these options while pretending that anyone that has qualms about gun control refuses to do ANYTHING about gun violence is the nadir of intellectual dishonest grave dancing corpsploitation.

So, you said I refused to consider mental health approaches to dealing with gun violence.  This was a completely off-the-wall response, because I did  in several threads on the topic, and you now acknowledge that I have done that several times in the past:

This would be an honest response if I had said Al had proposed to do nothing about mental health.

Either you're going around in circles or I am, but I'm completely lost.

[AI Wessex]

I wrote:

* Explain when the left said they wanted to jail climate change deniers.

In fairness to Seriati, I have found what I think he is referring to, so can perhaps save him the trouble of pointing it out to me.  A few months ago a group of about 20 scientists wrote a letter to Obama (since deleted, but included at the end of this post) following up on an op-ed by Sen. Whitehouse suggesting corruption in the fossil fuel industry that improperly pushes the agenda of "climate deniers" in the scientific community. He then raised the possibility that RICO laws could be used to root out such bad actors in both spheres.  That was a frivolous and embarrassing overreach, though still an apparently well-intentioned attempt to focus attention on the fossil fuel industry's resistance to Congressional attempts to reduce the use of the commodity they have built their businesses around.  For relevance, Whitehouse cited the tobacco industry's history of mendacious, immoral and sometimes illegal attempts to thwart action to label tobacco as a health risk with the goal of avoiding federal legislation that would restrict their activities in the open market.

Unfortunately for the cause of raising critical awareness of the threat from global warming (and unfortunately for science itself), a group of 20 scientists at the Institute of Global Environment and Society (IGES) at George Mason University decided to take it a step further.  They wrote a letter to Obama asking him to consider using RICO laws against other scientists who don't accept the findings that support the argument that humans are a major factor in climate change that we see today, specifically global warming.

The good news about this kerfuffle is that the letter was thoroughly disavowed across the scientific community for its heavy handed attempt to mix science, the legal process and policy to address what is an ever-present ongoing and necessary aspect of scientific inquiry.  I don't think the repercussions will be as severe as one scientist (Peter Webster) does: "You have signed the death warrant for science."  But it was bad enough.

The good news is that this mess is an isolated incident that should not be used to taint either science or the legislative process that both seek to understand and address the very real and very serious underlying problem.

Letter:

Letter to President Obama, Attorney General Lynch, and OSTP Director Holdren

September 1, 2015

Dear President Obama, Attorney General Lynch, and OSTP Director Holdren,

As you know, an overwhelming majority of climate scientists are convinced about the potentially serious adverse effects of human-induced climate change on human health, agriculture, and biodiversity. We applaud your efforts to regulate emissions and the other steps you are taking. Nonetheless, as climate scientists we are exceedingly concerned that America’s response to climate change – indeed, the world’s response to climate change – is insufficient. The risks posed by climate change, including increasing extreme weather events, rising sea levels, and increasing ocean acidity – and potential strategies for addressing them – are detailed in the Third National Climate Assessment (2014), Climate Change Impacts in the United States. The stability of the Earth’s climate over the past ten thousand years contributed to the growth of agriculture and therefore, a thriving human civilization. We are now at high risk of seriously destabilizing the Earth’s climate and irreparably harming people around the world, especially the world’s poorest people.

We appreciate that you are making aggressive and imaginative use of the limited tools available to you in the face of a recalcitrant Congress. One additional tool – recently proposed by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse – is a RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) investigation of corporations and other organizations that have knowingly deceived the American people about the risks of climate change, as a means to forestall America’s response to climate change. The actions of these organizations have been extensively documented in peerreviewed academic research (Brulle, 2013) and in recent books including: Doubt is their Product (Michaels, 2008), Climate Cover-Up (Hoggan & Littlemore, 2009), Merchants of Doubt (Oreskes & Conway, 2010), The Climate War (Pooley, 2010), and in The Climate Deception Dossiers (Union of Concerned Scientists, 2015). We strongly endorse Senator Whitehouse’s call for a RICO investigation.

The methods of these organizations are quite similar to those used earlier by the tobacco industry. A RICO investigation (1999 to 2006) played an important role in stopping the tobacco industry from continuing to deceive the American people about the dangers of smoking. If corporations in the fossil fuel industry and their supporters are guilty of the misdeeds that have been documented in books and journal articles, it is imperative that these misdeeds be stopped as soon as possible so that America and the world can get on with the critically important business of finding effective ways to restabilize the Earth’s climate, before even more lasting damage is done.

[Greg Davidson]

I think that in order to protect the reputation of science and to handle a sensitive political issue, it is appropriate for the science community to disavow any such prosecutorial effort as this. 

The cost of such a disavowal may be to permit activity that actually would be deemed illegal as per the RICO statute. It is entirely possible that some of the illegal tactics used by the tobacco industry to undermine the science showing the link between smoking and cancer may also be in use by the fossil fuels industry. Particularly as many of the people who commit the fraudulent acts on behalf of the tobacco industry are involved with a similar campaign to undermine science with respect to climate change. But from a pragmatic perspective, investigation of these tactics is likely to inspire perceptions of martyrdom. To enable the changes that will need to be made over time, the better path is to let the science of climate change (and the unfortunate effects of climate change that we experience) be the main drivers for a change in attitudes.

[Seriati]

This is a facile and right-sided argument, even though you point the finger at some on the right in a few of your examples.

I do think the right does a better job on some measures, it's worse on others and equally bad on a few.  The argument was right-sided, because your claim was left sided, and in my view trading on a history of civil rights advocacy that is no longer consistent with reality. 

Show me an example of the left assaulting freedom of religion and/or speech.

What do you think laws against hate speech are?  They  are express and deliberate assaults on freedom of speech. 

The freedom to practice religion has been challenged time and again by activists from the left.  Forcing a baker to close because they won't serve a gay wedding for religious reasons?  Every attempt to ban anyone from praying at a graduation or in a school (including specific instances where there have been attempts to prohibit religious student groups from using space that other student groups are allowed to use).  I mean if you're serious, you can find thousands of instances of deliberate encroachments on religious freedoms, and that's before you even get into big ticket obvious ones like the facts behind the Hobby Lobby Case for instance.

If you are referring to Kim Davis, you are framing exactly the kind of funhouse mirror objection I complained about.  The left doesn't want a thrice-divorced lowly bureaucratic functionary to deny rights of others to marry within their legal rights to do so simply because *she* has a religious objection to them marrying. If she weren't such a laughable messenger, what she did would be even more maddening.

I've written enough on the Kim Davis threads that you don't need to speculate on my opinion about her.  I never supported her in the least, my only objections where about a federal judge crafting a remedy.

* 4A spying?  You'll have to spell out for me what your objection is.  There is a point to be had here, but I want to understand if you are exaggerating to make one, instead.

Show me the probable cause the government has to collect each phone record that they collected.  The government was specifically barred from such dragnets by the Constitution, and both parties are acting unconstitutionally in allowing access to any phone record without a probable cause showing specific to the person who generated that phone record.

* The 5A and Ferguson.  If I understand your concern you are saying that only the left is concerned that police might be getting aware with murder of blacks.

No, don't you wish that strawman was true though.

You're quite content with the finding of the Brown GJ not to press charges.

Yes, can you articulate a specific reason based on the relevant facts why you are not?

Are you ok with the proven and reprehensible long-standing oppression of blacks by the Ferguson police?  If not, would you suspect there might be any cause for concern about how the GJ was managed by the city?

No to the first, and the fact that the first place you jump is not to the specifics of the case but to generalized societal issues is exactly why the left has lost the mantle as the defender of civil rights.  You've forgotten, at your heart, that this is about individuals, and that you can't craft justice by being unfair to any individual in pursuit of a greater good.

On the second question, as with anyone who truly cares about these issues, if you can demonstrate that the grand jury was actually corrupt that would make a difference.  But all you're doing is speculating and casting aspersions, because in that world view it must be true.

Explain when the left said they wanted to jail climate change deniers.  Are you concerned that the only semi-organized and official political body in the world that disbelieves that there is a man-made cause to global warming is the US Republican Party?  Every other country in the world that I know of accepts it as a fact.  The scientists who "deny" it are few and far between.  Many of them wear tin foil helmets to keep people from stealing their thoughts.

Lol, I see you've found the instance, bet you about choked when you found it.  The left is all about punishing wrong thoughts, safe spaces, hate speech, and yes jailing climate change skeptics is even further down that trail.  It still adds up to a conclusion that if you believe the left is championing civil rights, you've lost touch with where they actually are and definitely with where they are heading.

* You oppose taxing certain goods differently than others, I gather.  Why are cigarette or gas taxes a sign of taxing a disfavored behavior?  We have had taxes on both types of commodities (and many others) for decades, and both parties are equally "complicit" in their assessment.

I didn't say I opposed it.  To my knowledge most, if not all, of the sin taxes are actually state taxes and not ergo unconstitutional as they would be at the federal level.  The point is that the left doesn't even stop to think about how they are encroaching on the civil rights of those adults that want to buy such products in their zeal to punish the wicked behavior.  It's pretty easy to see when we flip the script and watch the People vs. Larry Flint how the right was doing it, just totally washes away  in your mind when the cause is good.

* Your last one is the well-worn complaint about Obamacare.

And?  That's a dismissive argument that has no merit.  Essentially, you just arguing that if we can ignore criticism long enough then no one can question anything anymore.  By that logic, you should concede to every conservative argument when they defend things on customary grounds.

Don't forget that the government also forces companies large and small to act in certain ways.

Sure does, the government was granted a lot of power to force us to act in certain ways.  Not sure why you think that's relevant here though, other than you're going to pretend that all exercises of force are identical.

State and federal laws require you to purchase other things, too.  For instance, you *have* to buy car insurance if you want to drive.

No actually I don't, I have to by car insurance if I want to buy a car and operate it on public roads.  I don't have to buy insurance if I rent a car, or drive loaner vehicles, or just drive on private property.

In any event, that's not really addressing your point.  Did I say the government can't set conditions on priviledges?  Can you explain to me what privilege is being conditioned by Obamacare?  Is it my priviledge to live?  to breath?  which is it?

You have to pay taxes if you own certain types of property.

I have to pay taxes whether or not I own property, the government was granted the power to tax.

You have to inoculate your children in most states if you send them to school.

Sort of true, of course I don't have to have kids or send them to school.  And in many cases I can opt out of the shots. 

Not everyone can buy guns; those who do have to register them; you can't buy every kind of gun or as many as you would like.

Is someone forced to buy a gun?  Not aware of that.  Virtually any citizen can buy a gun.  Not an expert on it, but I don't think you're right about the registration issue.  Certainly not about the number of guns you can buy.

It would be easier to list what you aren't required to buy or do.

It certainly would not be, lol.  Nice dramatic false point though.

Are any of those restrictions or requirements acceptable to you?

I sometimes wonder, why people think that putting together a long list of "not like" situations and then trying to pretend they made a point about a situation is more impressive than just making a cogent argument about the point in the first place.  Wouldn't it have been easier to explain where you see a constitutional power for the federal government to force you to buy a third party product, and what the actual limits of it are.  I'm really curious about the latter especially, so I can see exactly what I can force you to buy when my party is in power next time.

Your final point that these things are all proof that neither party is a champion of civil rights is total misdirection.

Misdirection from what?  Self satisfied back patting, that no matter how damaging to civil rights your actual policies are, you mean well and are a "champion of civil rights."? 

[AI Wessex]

What do you think laws against hate speech are?  They  are express and deliberate assaults on freedom of speech. 

I am utterly appalled that you think that.  I stopped reading your very typically long post when I saw that you started it this way.

[Seriati]

Lol, of course you did.

[Fenring]

How can hate speech laws be framed as anything other than restrictions on free speech? One would have to argue that 100% unrestricted free speech is a good unto itself, of course, in order to argue that this is a problem. Since I doubt many people think it should be permitted to shout "fire" in a theatre this point seems to be entirely specious. Al, Seriati's point isn't that by championing hate speech laws the left is evil, he just means that they aren't championing civil liberties. He never specified that there cannot be a case where something should be ruled as being more important than civil liberties; that was your hidden insertion.

[AI Wessex]

How can hate speech laws be framed as anything other than restrictions on free speech? One would have to argue that 100% unrestricted free speech is a good unto itself, of course, in order to argue that this is a problem. Since I doubt many people think it should be permitted to shout "fire" in a theatre this point seems to be entirely specious. Al, Seriati's point isn't that by championing hate speech laws the left is evil, he just means that they aren't championing civil liberties. He never specified that there cannot be a case where something should be ruled as being more important than civil liberties; that was your hidden insertion.

Hate speech is speech, just not a reflection of any civil right.  If you disagree, then you would agree that all laws are infringements on free speech if they punish you for harassing people in public because they are black or burning down their churches (a form of extreme speech), or for publishing lies about businesses (your own or others) to advance your own commercial prospects.  The examples of trampling on your "civil rights" get even more idiotic, but we're all leftist if we support any of them.  Hell, OSC himself is restricting your rights because he wants conversation here to be "civil" and "free" from obscenities.  Does OSC have more power than the 1A?  No, he's just a leftist, and the Moderator is just following orders.

Why then would Seriati argue that the left wants to restrict your civil rights by making hate speech illegal?  Is that a part of the leftist agenda?  He makes a very, very desperate argument, a very stupid one.  That's why it's not worth reading more of what he has to say (even though he has every right to say it). Stop defending him, you sound like a college freshman.

[Pyrtolin]

How can hate speech laws be framed as anything other than restrictions on free speech? One would have to argue that 100% unrestricted free speech is a good unto itself, of course, in order to argue that this is a problem. Since I doubt many people think it should be permitted to shout "fire" in a theatre this point seems to be entirely specious. Al, Seriati's point isn't that by championing hate speech laws the left is evil, he just means that they aren't championing civil liberties. He never specified that there cannot be a case where something should be ruled as being more important than civil liberties; that was your hidden insertion.

A point that you can only get to if you deliberately ignore the fact that hate speech works by systematically denying people civil liberties, so falls under the same category of speech that isn't protected or considered a civil liberty in the first place, as yelling "fire", slander, libel, fraud, etc...

IF there were no broader civil rights case being made, then it would be a valid point, but since this is a conflict between a narrow freedom to oppress others and a larger freedom to act as an equal and unoppressed member of society, then making a case for the latter by opposing hate speech is support of, not opposition to civil rights. It's a conflict between two rights to be sure, so net support lies with the larger overall impact.

[Pyrtolin]

Hell, OSC himself is restricting your rights because he wants conversation here to be "civil" and "free" from obscenities.  Does OSC have more power than the 1A?  No, he's just a leftist, and the Moderator is just following orders.

You're going out of bounds here. OSC isn't a government agency, he's not bound by the 1A or any other rules that dictate government action. (He can be bound by laws that the government makes that protect the civil liberties of others against actions that he might take to limit them, but there is no relevant law in this case; especially because the 1A, as a negative right, prevents legal restrictions of speech, it doesn't directly provide for positive enforcement in any given situation)

[Pyrtolin]

Forcing a baker to close because they won't serve a gay wedding for religious reasons?

The business is not being forced to close, it's choosing to close because it would rather do that than respect protections of people based in the freedom of religion. The owners are completely free to practice their religion. The problem only arises because they are attempting to force their customers to conform to their religion in order to be served, which is an active civil rights violation.

  Every attempt to ban anyone from praying at a graduation or in a school (including specific instances where there have been attempts to prohibit religious student groups from using space that other student groups are allowed to use). [

Coopting public spaces for overt religious rituals (especially where some social or other form of practical penalty arises from abstaining is a very egregious violation of freedom of religion.

I mean if you're serious, you can find thousands of instances of deliberate encroachments on religious freedoms, and that's before you even get into big ticket obvious ones like the facts behind the Hobby Lobby Case for instance.

Where the right upheld a major encroachment of the freedom of religion by telling people that their employer can dictate religious standards to them rather than protecting their freedom to practice on their own terms.

But you are doing a wonderful job of representing the theocratic interpretation of the 1st amendment as the freedom to continue to dictate religion because of traditional dominance rather than a protection of individuals from involuntary subjugation religious restrictions of others.

[Pyrtolin]

I don't have to buy insurance if I rent a car, or drive loaner vehicles, or just drive on private property.

You absolutely do in the first two cases, even if it's just the basic package that the company will sell you with the car. In the second case, unless the owner of the car has a policy that covers any driver of the car, you do need to bring your own insurance.

The point is moot though, because, as you point out, it's not quite comparable. And because the ACA doesn't actually require anyone to buy coverage, but rather to pay the cost of public catastrophic coverage that they cannot be denied if they don't purchase a private plan.

On the other hand, the government has long ago established that it can force people to buy any number of goods from private providers if there is a compelling private interest, such as equipment necessary participate in state militia while we were still making a go of not maintaining a standing professional army.

[Seriati]

Hate speech is speech, just not a reflection of any civil right.

Hate speech is nothing more or less than the disfavored and unpopular speech the first amendment entitles us to make, so that it can be held up to scrutiny and condemnation in the light of day.  Repression of it is fundamentally against civil rights.

If you disagree, then you would agree that all laws are infringements on free speech if they punish you for harassing people in public because they are black

Pretty well established that the KKK is in fact entitled to have rallies and to spread their message, and they've rightfully been condemned for it not suppressed.

or burning down their churches (a form of extreme speech)

The criminal act of arson, not to mention several other potential and likely felonies and civil offenses.  Not speech.

, or for publishing lies about businesses (your own or others) to advance your own commercial prospects.

Defamation and already illegal, and in fact not considered hate speech by any construction of the term.

The examples of trampling on your "civil rights" get even more idiotic, but we're all leftist if we support any of them.

Lol, care to explain why they don't apply?  Or just mad that you saw some unpleasant reflections?

Hell, OSC himself is restricting your rights because he wants conversation here to be "civil" and "free" from obscenities.  Does OSC have more power than the 1A?  No, he's just a leftist, and the Moderator is just following orders.

He certainly does restrict your freedom to say what ever you want, but he is not a part of the government and his decisions do not have the force of any law or sanction behind them.  His remedy is the ability to bar you from his site.  Why do you think this has anything to do with the first  amendment?

Why then would Seriati argue that the left wants to restrict your civil rights by making hate speech illegal?

Because you claimed you were defending civil rights, when your lack of understanding this issue appears ever more like a statement you're making blindly.

Is that a part of the leftist agenda?  He makes a very, very desperate argument, a very stupid one.  That's why it's not worth reading more of what he has to say (even though he has every right to say it). Stop defending him, you sound like a college freshman.

Yes, not worth reading, by your parlance you might as well declare my speech illegal.

[Seriati]

A point that you can only get to if you deliberately ignore the fact that hate speech works by systematically denying people civil liberties, so falls under the same category of speech that isn't protected or considered a civil liberty in the first place, as yelling "fire", slander, libel, fraud, etc...

A point you get to if you use logic and interpret what free speech means.  It most certainly does not allow for a limitation based on the offense of the listener.  That's pretty much a 1984 black is white argument you are making.

I should note too, that nothing AI cited as "evidence" needs a hate speech law to address, and what you cite is pretty much facist level repression.

[Seriati]

Forcing a baker to close because they won't serve a gay wedding for religious reasons?

The business is not being forced to close, it's choosing to close because it would rather do that than respect protections of people based in the freedom of religion. The owners are completely free to practice their religion. The problem only arises because they are attempting to force their customers to conform to their religion in order to be served, which is an active civil rights violation.

By "completely free" you mean actually closed their business and still required to pay $130k fine?  Doesn't sound like completely free to me.

[Pyrtolin]

A point that you can only get to if you deliberately ignore the fact that hate speech works by systematically denying people civil liberties, so falls under the same category of speech that isn't protected or considered a civil liberty in the first place, as yelling "fire", slander, libel, fraud, etc...

A point you get to if you use logic and interpret what free speech means.  It most certainly does not allow for a limitation based on the offense of the listener.  That's pretty much a 1984 black is white argument you are making.

Sure. But we're not talking about "offense" we're talking about, but active harm done to people. I never said anything at all about offense, so it's completely irrelevant here.

[Pyrtolin]

Forcing a baker to close because they won't serve a gay wedding for religious reasons?

The business is not being forced to close, it's choosing to close because it would rather do that than respect protections of people based in the freedom of religion. The owners are completely free to practice their religion. The problem only arises because they are attempting to force their customers to conform to their religion in order to be served, which is an active civil rights violation.

By "completely free" you mean actually closed their business and still required to pay $130k fine?  Doesn't sound like completely free to me.

You're suggesting that the closing of their business was a specific religious ritual they had to adhere to? Their business was not a place of worship, but a place of commerce which they attempted to use to dictate religious standards to their customers. A Kosher deli can choose not to sell you cheese. It can't refuse to sell you a sandwich because you're going to put cheese on it after you leave. The owners of the bakery were attempting to dictate the use of the cake after it was delivered and thus became none of their business, despite the fact that our laws say that service cannot be denied on religious or orientation grounds. Freedom of religion does not justify suppression of the civil rights of others, as these bakers attempted to use it as cover for.

Also, the fine was not due to the refusal of service, but rather for the subsequent harassment and damages to the couple that were illegally refused service.

[Pyrtolin]

Hate speech is nothing more or less than the disfavored and unpopular speech the first amendment entitles us to make, so that it can be held up to scrutiny and condemnation in the light of day.  Repression of it is fundamentally against civil rights.

You're outright making things up here. Hate Speech is speech that amounts to terroristic threats against people based on classes that the public has an active interest in protecting from discrimination. It's not disfavored speech- it's categorial of incitement to violence or other oppressive acts that deny people liberties that the government has a positive duty to ensure and protect- in this case the positive right to freedom to act on equal terms as a private citizen unencumbered by discrimination based in any of the protected identity categories.

[Seriati]

A point that you can only get to if you deliberately ignore the fact that hate speech works by systematically denying people civil liberties, so falls under the same category of speech that isn't protected or considered a civil liberty in the first place, as yelling "fire", slander, libel, fraud, etc...

A point you get to if you use logic and interpret what free speech means.  It most certainly does not allow for a limitation based on the offense of the listener.  That's pretty much a 1984 black is white argument you are making.

Sure. But we're not talking about "offense" we're talking about, but active harm done to people. I never said anything at all about offense, so it's completely irrelevant here.

Which is not the standard, particularly not as you mean it.  To be valid restriction on speech in the US, it has to be speech that is a call to violence.  You can't regulate based on the speech itself, only on the form of delivery, hence the Westboro Baptists can write anything they want on a sign and protest and are protected, but you can't stand in someone's face and scream obscenities at them (generally).  In any event, mental harm to the listener is not enough, nor is the fact that the hated listener may choose to be violent in reaction to the content of the message.  Feel free to parse this expressly, because it seems to me like you're making a vague general statement that overstates the narrow constraints that have been allowed.

[AI Wessex]

Hate speech is nothing more or less than the disfavored and unpopular speech the first amendment entitles us to make, so that it can be held up to scrutiny and condemnation in the light of day.  Repression of it is fundamentally against civil rights.

You're outright making things up here. Hate Speech is speech that amounts to terroristic threats against people based on classes that the public has an active interest in protecting from discrimination. It's not disfavored speech- it's categorial of incitement to violence or other oppressive acts that deny people liberties that the government has a positive duty to ensure and protect- in this case the positive right to freedom to act on equal terms as a private citizen unencumbered by discrimination based in any of the protected identity categories.

Ah, yes!  Monitoring email or messaging systems with an intent to intercept the participants' future actions based on what is said is also part of a leftist agenda, so George Bush is not only a leftist, too, but one of the MOSTest leftistical.  We always believed that his rightistical is much bigger than his left, but I guess we were wrong!  By this silly illogic nothing the couple in San Bernardino said online should have been used to stop them from carrying out their massacre, even if the government had known about it ahead of time.  The protection of their civil right to plot the attack is enshrined in the 1A, snuggled up right next to the 2A.  Even right-wing fascists who want to use intel and electronic surveillance to prevent future terrorist attacks are leftists.  It's a pretty big tent.

[Pyrtolin]

In any event, mental harm to the listener is not enough, nor is the fact that the hated listener may choose to be violent in reaction to the content of the message.  Feel free to parse this expressly, because it seems to me like you're making a vague general statement that overstates the narrow constraints that have been allowed.

Where are you getting mental harm from? Are you still trying to make things up rather than actually talk about hate speech?


We're talking about speech and actions that make it clear that people's civil liberties will be infringed if they try to act freely. That people of a certain color will be beaten , if not killed if they enter certain neighborhoods or patronize certain businesses. That people of a certain orientation will face sanction from their employers, denial of service, or harassment if their identity is put on the table. Statements or actions that encourage denial of security or live saving services to people of certain gender identities or presentation.

You're talking about random things and bringing up irrelevant situations when the topic is Hate Speech- the use of words as a tool of oppression and coordination of denial of civil rights. That is real, manifest harm that is no more protected than any other form of incitement or use of language to directly harm others.

[Pete at Home]

Pete: In previous arguments you demanded, received, and failed to respond to alternative ways to reduce gun violence. Mist notably, PROVIDE PSYCIATRIC CARE AND MEDS for the mentally ill.  Your failure to address these options while pretending that anyone that has qualms about gun control refuses to do ANYTHING about gun violence is the nadir of intellectual dishonest grave dancing corpsploitation.

On the contrary, I have engaged in several threads on the topic of the relationship of guns to violence and offered very detailed suggestions on how to address it.  That you either don't remember any of that or choose to ignore and forget it because [motive speculation]

You fancy you can read my mind when you just proved you didn't even read my post.  Try again. Think harder.

You claimed that gun rights advocates weren't willing to do ANYTHING to reduce gun violence.  Fenring and I reminded sou of several things that gun rights advocates are willing to do to reduce gun violence.  So your accusation is false. Mental health care would obviously reduce gun violence.  So your accusation is false.

No, Pete.  I have advocated a number of things related to medical and mental health changes.  I've also suggested keeping better track of who has bought guns and re-registering guns every few years.  Those are just a few things I think would help.  Every single one of them has been stymied by state and federal legislatures.  I suppose it's nice to know that a schizophrenic ex-felon convicted of murder who is on the terrorist watch list can buy an unlimited number of guns in some states.  Let's make sure to keep it that way and then blame people who really want things to change for whining after each new report of gun killings.

You still fail to address them AS MEASURES TO REDUCE GUN VIOLENCE.  And you falsely accuse several Ornerians who advocate such measures as wanting to "do nothing about gun violence."  That's like saying that folks that don't want to force circumcisions want to "do nothing about the HIV epidemic."

[AI Wessex]

?? Why else would I support those measures in a discussion about dealing with gun violence ??  Your reach on this one far exceeds your grasp.  But if you think I come up short on this, why is this the main idea on the lips of every Republican candidate to deal with this problem?

[DJQuag]

I haven't yet found a definition online for hate speech that doesn't include merely expressing hatred or dislike for a certain group.

I'm in complete agreement with Seriati. When it comes to the actual crimes,  and not just hurt feelings,  the laws are already in place to punish wrongdoers without hate speech legislation.

So, funny story from over here in England. The UK has some really disgusting hate speech laws. You really can be imprisoned just for offending someone.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_the_United_Kingdom

So, a few months back there is this Arab woman working at a university in London. Said woman is an SJW extraordinare,  and before long she's started a club that expressly forbids white males from attending. She got some unwanted attention for this, and in response she took to Twitter, posting tweets that included the opinion that all white people just needed to die.

In a shocking twist, someone actually reported her to the police, and she was arrested on hate speech charges. Naturally, the left only meant for this law to be used against whites, and were very upset that poor Bahar Mustafa was charged. A few days ago, the charges were quietly dropped.

Is anyone really surprised by this? For extra credit, can anyone guess in which manner Pyrtolin is going to argue that this no whites club and call for genocide isn't hate speech and racism?

[DJQuag]

The Amendment doesn't mention no unreasonable searches and seizures unless planes are about to hit the Twin Towers.

Like Franklin said, give up liberty for safety, and you deserve to lose both.

If there is no warrant then there can be no legal search and seizure of citizen phone records.  The Fourth Amendment is pretty explicit.

Yes. Even if I knew this program would save lives tomorrow, even they included mine or loves, I'd end the NSA wiretapping tonight. And frankly, anyone who goes along with it because it makes them feel safer or because "I haven't done anything wrong," is pretty damned cowardly.

[AI Wessex]

I admit to being torn on this issue for several reasons.  The two main objections to NSA monitoring of private conversations are that it violates the Constitution and that it doesn't work.  I am on the fence about both of those claims, given that the right to privacy is not a universal guarantee since "privacy" itself is undefined and that if it ever works it is akin to finding a needle in a haystack.  In other words, most of the time it's wrong and doesn't provide any value, but on rare occasions when it *could* prevent a tragedy of staggering proportions, it's value to protect us would far outweigh its defects.  It's like a logic puzzle where mutually exclusive principles both counterbalance and rule each other out.

FWIW, the Franklin quote is never considered in its original context.  He was talking about the Pennsylvania legislature's authority to assert its right to tax the Penn family to pay for the defense of the colony's frontier from French-Indian attacks.  The alternative was to give up that right and receive "voluntary" contributions from the Penn family, which would have perpetuated the family's ownership of the colony and its dependence on the family's largess.

[AI Wessex]

I haven't yet found a definition online for hate speech that doesn't include merely expressing hatred or dislike for a certain group.

I think the legal definition includes an "attack" rather than just an expression of a feeling.  If the right of free speech is a sweeping guarantee, aren't libel laws in conflict with it?