Black History Month: An Alternative

[Sovereign Nation]

(02-15-2016, 04:41 AM)fredtoast Wrote: The only reason you think this way is because oin your mind racial profiling never happens.  You know nothing about the case an dhave no evidence at all that anyone hadf an ax to grind.

The fact that you would go to the lengthss to make something up out of thin air and claim it is more probable (even with zero evidence) than the chance racial profiling actually exists is pretty strong proof of white privilege.

You would rather believe a complete fabrication of your imagination with no evidence to back it up than to admit that racial profiling might exist.

Oh, you have all the facts on the case then?  My mistake. 

Do you see the irony here?

You making a claim that I would go to any lengths to prove that racial profiling doesn't exist is incredulous to you.  I get nothing out of it, there is no reason for me to go to such lengths, yet here I am.  Going to what you consider extreme lengths to prove something as not occurring.

However, when someone actually has a reason to lie, it is IMPOSSIBLE for the to make something up to get a favorable reaction.  Even if it is just public sympathy.  That is impossible for someone to lie about something like racial profiling.  There is no way they will make that up.  There is no way they won't go through extreme lengths to prove racial profiling.  Even though they would have a reason or reasons to do so.

(note:  I have been on record stating that racial profiling is a possibility, however, I believe in a society that values a presumption of innocence, that would prevent someone from making a false claim for personal gain.  I have only seen claims come from one side of the equation, this is the 1st case presented that shows from the other side.  However, since I am supposed to assume the accused is innocent, I still look for burden of proof before exclaiming Guilty!  I have admitted that it doesn't look good, however it is still an allegation and there could be reasonable doubt that the accused is innocent.

I am not a lawyer, but Fred is.  So I am surprised that Fred has taken the stance of the accused being guilty.  If I am not mistaken Fred is a public defense attorney, which makes me even more surprised that his reaction to my counter is one full of ad homenim)

[Sovereign Nation]

(02-15-2016, 04:46 AM)fredtoast Wrote: The difference between us is that I don't consider a system that denies equal rights to all people "doing pretty good".

In fact I see that as a major flaw in any society.

So what do you think of Dubai?

[fredtoast]

(02-15-2016, 04:54 AM)Sovereign Nation Wrote: I get nothing out of it, there is no reason for me to go to such lengths,

Yes you do.  Your entire identity seems to be based on white pride, and any admission of a "white privilege" destroys your belief in the superiority of your race.  I have never seen anyone go to such lengths to prove that all white people in this country obtained all the power and control they have without any sort of privilege or advantage.  If you were to admit that there was a white privilege then it would damage your white pride.

 

(02-15-2016, 04:54 AM)Sovereign Nation Wrote: I am not a lawyer, but Fred is.  So I am surprised that Fred has taken the stance of the accused being guilty.  If I am not mistaken Fred is a public defense attorney, which makes me even more surprised that his reaction to my counter is one full of ad homenim)

As a criminal defense attorney I known that it is almost impossible to create a defense on zero evidence.  If every defendant could walk just by saying, "They are lying because they don't like me" then I would win 100% of my cases. 

Unless I have a entire jury who will believe anything as long as it supports their white pride and the case involves allegations of racial profiling.

[fredtoast]

(02-15-2016, 04:55 AM)Sovereign Nation Wrote: So what do you think of Dubai?

What do you think of strict sharia law and an oppressed labor force.

Personally I think it sucks.

[Sovereign Nation]

(02-15-2016, 05:08 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Yes you do.  Your entire identity seems to be based on white pride, and any admission of a "white privilege" destroys your belief in the superiority of your race.  I have never seen anyone go to such lengths to prove that all white people in this country obtained all the power and control they have without any sort of privilege or advantage.  If you were to admit that there was a white privilege then it would damage your white pride.

 



As a criminal defense attorney I known that it is almost impossible to create a defense on zero evidence.  If every defendant could walk just by saying, "They are lying because they don't like me" then I would win 100% of my cases. 

Unless I have a entire jury who will believe anything as long as it supports their white pride and the case involves allegations of racial profiling.

Again, please post where I said whites are superior?

Still haven't seen that posted.  I have seen strawman from you.  Not any evidence to back up me believing in the superiority of being white.

There is no way to damage my white pride.  

One thing that is very telling Fred, you say "my race"?  Isn't it your race too?  Or do you believe that we don't have a race?  Fred, you are coming across as very angry.  Why?

Actually as a defense attorney, you don't have to build the case, you just have to present reasonable doubt.  Our system, unless it has changed, puts the burden of proof on the accuser. 

For instance.  If I say I was robbed at gunpoint by Vlad.  Then it is up to the prosecution to build a case against Vlad.  All you have to do, is review the case the prosecution is going to present and the evidence and then give reasonable doubt to show that the evidence doesn't support what happened.  Am I sure it was Vlad?  How many line ups did I have in which I picked Vlad out of.  What type of gun did Vlad have?  Was Vlad found with a gun on him or in the vicinity?  Does this weapon have his fingerprints or other identifying evidence?

You don't actually have to prove innocence, you just have to give enough evidence to get a not guilty.  I am sure I am simplifying but you seem to not know that in a "innocent until proven guilty" motto, that the burden is not on the defense, it is on the prosecution. 

[Sovereign Nation]

(02-15-2016, 05:15 AM)fredtoast Wrote: What do you think of strict sharia law and an oppressed labor force.

Personally I think it sucks.

So should the UN sanction Dubai, instead of turning a blind eye?

[fredtoast]

(02-15-2016, 05:24 AM)Sovereign Nation Wrote: You don't actually have to prove innocence, you just have to give enough evidence to get a not guilty.  I am sure I am simplifying but you seem to not know that in a "innocent until proven guilty" motto, that the burden is not on the defense, it is on the prosecution. 

I know that once the state has provided prooof of a crime then it is up to the defense to create reasonable doubt.

And as I said before, if it was as easy as saying multiple eyewitnesses are lying because they don't like me then I would win 100% of my cases.  

You are clearly the one who does not understand how it works.

[Sovereign Nation]

(02-15-2016, 05:38 AM)fredtoast Wrote: I know that once the state has provided prooof of a crime then it is up to the defense to create reasonable doubt.

And as I said before, if it was as easy as saying multiple eyewitnesses are lying because they don't like me then I would win 100% of my cases.  

You are clearly the one who does not understand how it works.

I thought he state just had to provide evidence that removes reasonable doubt that a crime took place and that the person is guilty?

I think I did say that I was simplifying things, if it was easy then we could all be defense attorneys.  However, out of the 2 if I had to choose the easier one to do.  I would say defense is easier than prosecution.  I mean for one thing, you don't have to convince all 12, you only have to convince 1 out of the 12.

For some reason you seem to assume that I thought you didn't have to pass a state bar exam in order to be a lawyer.  People don't just pass this exam, well unless you are Frank Abernathy.

[fredtoast]

(02-15-2016, 06:13 AM)Sovereign Nation Wrote: For some reason you seem to assume that I thought you didn't have to pass a state bar exam in order to be a lawyer.  

You are delusional.  I have said nothing like this at all.

You are the king of making stuff up out of thin air.

[Vlad]

(02-15-2016, 04:35 AM)Sovereign Nation Wrote: Yeah, I saw that too. 

They can't distinguish the difference between a proud white man from a white supremacist either.

Stormfront indeed.  I wonder which liberal article he read to learn about Stormfront? 

Didn't pay attention to Pats post at first, then I decided to Google it because I didn't even know what the **** it was.


As far as "being proud to be white" I look at it differently.

I don't like saying it because I am inferior to nobody. Let me 'splain.

The common and mistaken argument by misled liberal whiteys is that the people in the image below should be given a pass because at one time or another they were oppressed.

But being oppressed is not why a black person says he is " proud to be black", or why a gay says he's proud to be gay...a man saying "proud to be gay" is simply him telling himself and the world that there's nothing wrong with being gay...that as a  gay man he is inferior to nobody. See those gross gay pride parades.


Being "proud to be black" the same thing.  It implies his race is not inferior to no other and to dispel black stereotypes...the color black is always represented as evil.  Remember the "black is beautiful" movement of the 60's?

Its all about fighting inferiority complexes. I have no inferiority complex therefore I have no reason to tell you I am proud to be white.
Make no mistake, I'm not saying you can't be proud of who or what you are, but expressing it openly sends an entirely different message than keeping it to yourself.

 

[Sovereign Nation]

(02-15-2016, 05:38 AM)fredtoast Wrote: I know that once the state has provided prooof of a crime then it is up to the defense to create reasonable doubt.

And as I said before, if it was as easy as saying multiple eyewitnesses are lying because they don't like me then I would win 100% of my cases.  

You are clearly the one who does not understand how it works.

(02-15-2016, 06:13 AM)Sovereign Nation Wrote: I thought he state just had to provide evidence that removes reasonable doubt that a crime took place and that the person is guilty?

I think I did say that I was simplifying things, if it was easy then we could all be defense attorneys.  However, out of the 2 if I had to choose the easier one to do.  I would say defense is easier than prosecution.  I mean for one thing, you don't have to convince all 12, you only have to convince 1 out of the 12.

For some reason you seem to assume that I thought you didn't have to pass a state bar exam in order to be a lawyer.  People don't just pass this exam, well unless you are Frank Abernathy.

(02-15-2016, 06:43 AM)fredtoast Wrote: You are delusional.  I have said nothing like this at all.

You are the king of making stuff up out of thin air.

I have never seen so many people not understand simple communication.


You sated the bold.

I then, read that, and restated as the Italic.

If I "clearly don't understand how it works" as you put it.

Then wouldn't that assume that I don't know that a lawyer needs to do in order to be a lawyer?  Such as taking a state bar exam?

In your little snide remark about me not understanding something you are in essence saying that you don't think I am aware that being a lawyer isn't easy, that one has to take a state bar exam, and that usually you have to go to law school and study extensively to be able to pass it.

I wanted to get clarification on if that was you stance, that you thought I was really that stupid.  That it was supposedly simple to be a lawyer.  Even though in the previous post I clearly stated that was simplifying the process.  That didn't stop you from making your remark though.

Hence the words "For some reason you seem.."  meaning, that this is how your message was received and I would like you to expand.

If I am the "king of making stuff up out of thin air".

Then that would make the leader of this little community of "I didn't say that!"


Effective communication is when you take in what someone says, and then repeat it back to them in your own words.  Basically you are confirming that the information that was passed on is accurate.  If the information is not accurate the appropriate response is "You misunderstood what I was saying and what I meant, let me clarify..."  Not more snide remarks of "You're delusional!" 

Does having a college degree not teach people how to effectively communicate anymore?  Is it a bunch of snide remarks, and then constant denials about what you said?  Is it even possible to have civil debate anymore from opposing sides, or did college just make people disagreeable and unwilling to listen to someone who doesn't have the same viewpoints that you have?

In the other thread, Fred, you showed your true colors, in this thread you are continuing to prove those colors accurate.

[GMDino]

(02-15-2016, 02:56 AM)bfine32 Wrote: I've been around these boards for a while and very little surprises me> But the day the meme poster and self-proclaimed communications major told me visual was not an important aspect of communication,I damn near.........

actually I didn't damn near do anything I just found it absolutely hilarious,  

(02-15-2016, 03:27 AM)Sovereign Nation Wrote: Well did you know that if you are paraphrasing someone that you must quote them exactly?

Not only that but you can't use quotation marks in paraphrase to separate that person's thoughts from your own?

Did you know when asked by someone  to show where they said something that you were paraphrasing and it is on the same page and only a few post above, that you can't say the quote is literally on the same page?  Literally doesn't mean exactly or precisely, like I learned.  Though to be fair it is probably my teacher's fault, since I am an autodidact.  After looking up the definition it has been a point to bring up to prove something or other.

My absolute favorite was this...

Government should be in charge of schools! 

While posting this George Carlin meme:






Evidently that isn't ironic.

(02-15-2016, 03:29 AM)Vlad Wrote: Dino  tells you you're upset, he tells you you're a racist, he tells you that you are privileged. Sooooo smart these libs are eh?

Then he posts a stereotypical black dude strutting around just like him.

Well, enough about me.  

Keep it up guys!  You're all making my Monday a lot funnier!

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(02-15-2016, 01:30 AM)CKwi88 Wrote: And here I am still trying to figure out what difference European or Israel makes when the guy is as white as friggin Wonderbread.

Because he isn't white enough. 

[Vlad]

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(02-15-2016, 06:50 AM)Vlad Wrote: Didn't pay attention to Pats post at first, then I decided to Google it because I didn't even know what the **** it was.

But,you're familiar with metapedia.  SN thinks stormfront is filled with "real men of action."

 

[CKwi88]

(02-15-2016, 10:26 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Because he isn't white enough. 

I've learned quite a bit from this thread:

Zuckerberg and Bloomberg aren't white.

I've learned that information acquired from Youtube and Quora can be regurgitated and presented as fact without the most basic of reading. But post numbers from the government's Housing and Urban Development site? That's not reliable. 

This thread is just a gold mine of win.

[fredtoast]

(02-15-2016, 07:15 AM)Sovereign Nation Wrote: In your little snide remark about me not understanding something you are in essence saying that you don't think I am aware that being a lawyer isn't easy, that one has to take a state bar exam, and that usually you have to go to law school and study extensively to be able to pass it.

Stating that you don't know how to defend a criminal in court has NOTHING to do with thinking that you don't know that lawyers have to pass a bar exam.

What you do is make unjustified leaps in logic to change the meaning of what people say.  Then you use these made up meanings to support your argument.

[fredtoast]

(02-15-2016, 07:15 AM)Sovereign Nation Wrote: Does having a college degree not teach people how to effectively communicate anymore?  Is it a bunch of snide remarks, and then constant denials about what you said?  Is it even possible to have civil debate anymore from opposing sides, or did college just make people disagreeable and unwilling to listen to someone who doesn't have the same viewpoints that you have?

Well the college grads around here are not the ones who think they can win a debate just by calling everyone who disagrees with them a recently banned slur.


But, please, continue to lecture us all on the rules of "civil debate".

[GMDino]

Well...it was fun while it lasted.  

[fredtoast]

(02-15-2016, 06:50 AM)Vlad Wrote: Didn't pay attention to Pats post at first, then I decided to Google it because I didn't even know what the **** it was.


As far as "being proud to be white" I look at it differently.

I don't like saying it because I am inferior to nobody. Let me 'splain.

The common and mistaken argument by misled liberal whiteys is that the people in the image below should be given a pass because at one time or another they were oppressed.

But being oppressed is not why a black person says he is " proud to be black", or why a gay says he's proud to be gay...a man saying "proud to be gay" is simply him telling himself and the world that there's nothing wrong with being gay...that as a  gay man he is inferior to nobody. See those gross gay pride parades.


Being "proud to be black" the same thing.  It implies his race is not inferior to no other and to dispel black stereotypes...the color black is always represented as evil.  Remember the "black is beautiful" movement of the 60's?

Its all about fighting inferiority complexes. I have no inferiority complex therefore I have no reason to tell you I am proud to be white.
Make no mistake, I'm not saying you can't be proud of who or what you are, but expressing it openly sends an entirely different message than keeping it to yourself.

 

Your logic fails.

I am proud to be white, but I can also admit that there is a privilege to being white in the United States.

The two issues are not connected to me.