You missunderstood your parent.
The point is not accessibility for new players. The point is that a super top geared level 80, who needed monthes on level 80 to get that gear is outgeared by a lvl 81 who played the new expansion for two or three hours.
Would you feel better if they called it "Modern Warfare", then released "Modern Warfare 2", then "Black Ops", then "Black Ops 2", then "Modern Warfare 3", and every time you bought a new version you had to level up from 1 to get access to all the cool weapons while all the people that never played a previous version were at the same level as you?
People want new content and new challenges. That is what WoW is trying to do, but with a continuos world so you can keep playing the same character. If WoW really is dying, it is because people are ready for something radically different. You can only choose a new wild card so many times in poker before people start to realize they're still just playing poker with a wild card...
The last WoW thing that got me truly interested in the game was the An Qiraj war effort. Something that actually affected the world in some way. When I rescue orphans, I want to see them running around Org until some Alliance brat kills them on the way to slay Thrall... who will remain dead until the Horde resurrect him. But instead the entire world is little more than a chat room to find people to join a Diablo style raid group.
How about a Sims/WoW mashup? Or better yet, Minecraft/WoW? At least a world-editor so people can make their own dungeons.
Aaaah... I miss the MUD days sometimes. Just spend a few minutes coding and you can have anything you want in there.
In these cases did an Armed Citizenry actually stop said rogue elements?
tbd.
In the numerous cases where the government has actually oppressed it's people (slavery, segregation, etc.), can you name a single instance of the armed citizenry stopping them?
I don't see the South electing a government with the stated goal of expelling or murdering every resident of the North, flatly stating that any and all negotiations are purely strategic moves to delay fighting when deemed necessary, that the commonly accepted "two state solution" will never be allowed to happen, or refusing to acknowledge the historical incidents predating the formation of their Northern neighbor and otherwise implicitly believing that no Northern citizen has a right to live.
Yeah, I don't like the Likud Charter either:
The Jewish communities in Judea, Samaria and Gaza are the realization of Zionist values. Settlement of the land is a clear expression of the unassailable right of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel and constitutes an important asset in the defense of the vital interests of the State of Israel. The Likud will continue to strengthen and develop these communities and will prevent their uprooting....
The Government of Israel flatly rejects the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state west of the Jordan river.
Which part of the charter claims the inferiority of "The Jew", or in this case the Palestinians? Or states that peace negotiations are only strategic moves?
I get that Israel does some shady stuff, but its really important on an issue as touchy as this to try to be objective, and refrain from hyperbole. Neither side has been great about this, both sides have considerable grievances, but neither side is as bad as WW2 Germany or current North Korea.
Perspective, rationality, guys.
This is all I want. I'm get worked up by the Rush Limbaugh quality opinions.
As soon as the rockets and suicide bombings stop, I'll start attacking the 2nd biggest threat to peace in the Israeli/Palestinian issue: Israel.
No, I mean the ones the anti-semitic organization Hamas, who the Palestinians elected to run their government, continually fire at innocent Jewish families. The ones you never have to live through. The ones you so easily make light of and excuse. The fact that Israel has better technology doesn't make the people firing those rockets any less evil.
More problems for tired Zionist apologia: Israel's justification for starting the 1967 war was the Egyptian blockade of the Straits of Tiran
I haven't apologized for anything. I merely point out facts that both sides, mostly anti-semitics, like to ignore.
But that means that Palestinian attacks in response to the total blockade of Gaza are perfectly justified by Israeli rules.
Sure kid. And its perfectly justified if Manson gets out and murders some more because we were evil enough to put him in prison. You're a typical anti-semite refusing to acknowledge that you would yourself would never live with the shennanigans the Palestinians are pulling and would probably respond in the same way.
The Palestinians are entitled to all of the West Bank and East Jerusalem, but they've been willing to make concessions on that in order to get a state of their own.
Of course they do. As soon as Jordan gave up their own claim to the land it should go to some randomly chosen 3rd party that promises to kick out and/or murder some portion of the population. And the Jews that have been living there for the last 2000 years, or those that came at the invite of the Ottoman Emperor be damned, right? Just like the ones that were murdered or expelled from Gaza in 1929.
But Israel keeps making more and more draconian demands, or pulls out of negotiations.
They both have at various points.
Because Israel isn't interested in peace.
I'm sorry, who isn't interested in peace? Have you even read the Hamas charter?
It's interested in land, and waiting out the clock until it becomes a matter of taking land from someone's great-great grandchild to give to someone else's great-great grandchild.
Probably. But until the rockets stop, I don't give a fuck. You don't target children. Ever.
Frankly, I agree with Sir Gerald Kaufman of the UK in his views that Israel is no better than certain German Fascists in their treatment of the Palestinians.
I don't recall German Jews ever stating they wanted to march every German into the Rhine (Ya, I know that quote doesn't come from a Palestinian, but the sentiment does and it predates the formation of Israel), so I really don't see how the comparison is valid.
“The current Israeli government ruthlessly and cynically exploits the continuing guilt among gentiles over the slaughter of Jews in the Holocaust as justification for their murder of Palestinians,
Actually their most commonly cited reason for "murdering the Palestinians" is something along the lines of "INCOMING ROCKET!" I really don't ever hear the Holocaust being brought up except to compare Israeli Jews to the Nazis.
And before some butt-hurt heeb starts pulling out his "you disagree with Israel, you therefor are an anti-semite" card...
Sir Gerald Kaufman is himself a Jew.
Uncle Tom doesn't care what race you are.
I hope that someday more land can be given to Palestine and both sides can learn to live in peace -- but considering this dispute seems driven by ultra-conservative religious wing-nuts on all sides, I don't think that will happen without total annihilation of the region.
The Palestinians have been rejecting a two-state solution for more than 80 years. So you're probably right on the mutual annihilation...
No, the US funnels far more overt support and resources to its bellicose little buddies. I don't see North Korea shifting the DMZ southward every year, leveling South Korean cities so North Korean settlers can move onto the land. China doesn't throw an international diplomatic hissy-fit at the mere suggestion that South Korea should be allowed to have its own autonomous government, much less one armed and hostile to the expansion of North Korean power.
I don't see the South electing a government with the stated goal of expelling or murdering every resident of the North, flatly stating that any and all negotiations are purely strategic moves to delay fighting when deemed necessary, that the commonly accepted "two state solution" will never be allowed to happen, or refusing to acknowledge the historical incidents predating the formation of their Northern neighbor and otherwise implicitly believing that no Northern citizen has a right to live.
Being either poor or non-white means you get a worse treatment.
So now the question is, are you saying race, or culture?
See, the poor side of things can be reached by following logic in a capitalist society: having wealth is an advantage in nearly any situation. The race and culture side though is not so easily followed. When the entire argument is based on comparing this science case to the BB case and citing as the only evidence the fact that one kid is white while the other is black, but not explaining how any other variable is being discounted, the entire argument is so full of holes you might as well be preaching from the bible rather than discussing a topic.
When dealing with persecution, violence is one means to an end. But the choice to use or not use it does not, by itself, mean that its users lack or have a genetic or cultural preference for that tool. There are many other instances of persecution that have not been responded to with violence, some of which taking places at race level proportions: The Jews, Ghandi, and Tibetan monks come immediately to mind, though Malcolm X vs. MLK may be a more relevant example.
While race issues may be the source of many problems (And is absolutely the accepted reason behind the start of the anti-drug laws), I am not convinced that our justice system is tainted with rampant racism or that these two cases are examples of the same, as is being claimed. I think money or the lack thereof is far more influential in deciding prosecutions, with racism being the domain of individuals, not the system. I don't have the psychopathic personality necessary to be an effective prosecutor today (I would not have filed charges against this girl), but I also see no reason to believe this D.A. based her (his? I don't recall and don't have the energy to check now) decision on race, especially given the world's history of sexism.
The "boys will be boys" argument has worked very well for boys of every race just as much as the "girls should be quiet in the kitchen" argument has sent girls home from school for being witches and cursing their teachers with sickness. We may have never heard about Steubenville if not for the girl's suicide because everybody there, including the victim's best friends, think the victim was at fault... She shouldn't have gotten drunk at the party. And yet not a single "this is a race issue" post has explained how sex is not influencing the prosecutors decision. (And just in case the D.A. is female, remember that Uncle Tom ruins the 'chicks dont hate on other chicks' argument too).
As soon as race is involved it seems, science and logic goes out the window.
No, you weren't. Neither was I. You appear to just be a pedantic shit by feigning ignorance of what "minimal" means here though. Minimal regulation doesn't mean "no anti-trust laws" any more than it means "no x, y, or z laws"... unless you are one of the ones arguing against anti-trust laws in your version of minimal regulation. But since you didn't present an argument, that is not the case.
frank_adrian314159 offered a wild, ignorant, incorrect, extremist interpretation of the libertarian platform equating minimal regulation to no regulation and basically claiming all commerce would grind to a halt under the boot of a single mega-corporate monopoly squashing all competition before it starts. I don't need to precisely and clearly define minimal in a way to satisfy you or anybody else's personal definition to make the point that it is different from any of the millions of possible "no regulation" examples.
I'm not saying cultural values don't influence things, they absolutely do. Nor am I saying any of your observations are incorrect. In fact I think your own beliefs probably mirror my own in many respects. However I believe my observations are incomplete as they don't include any kind of control groups so I hesitate to make statements or accept arguments either way. I also believe that genetics is discounted too quickly by the p.c. crowd in their efforts to say everybody is equal and discussions to the contrary are beat down with very large sticks. Its just too easy to say its all or primarily culture. It makes it seem fixable rather than out of our control when everybody (nothing is absolute, but its near enough here) wants to be in control of their world. Of course its just as easy to claim its all genetics and join the KKK, but I don't subscribe to that side either.
Ultimately though I was disagreeing with 1 pedantic point, not the argument as a whole. I'm not sure of any rational person that would discount the influence gang/rap culture has on people. Desensitization to violence increases the likelihood of resorting to violence to solve problems. (I'll get crucified here if I dare mention how that relates to violent video games...) It is the same brain processes that cause things like mandatory wearing of school IDs or warrantless wiretaps to be so dangerous: If we, as children, are raised with these things happening and no stink is raised, we come to view them as normal and won't argue as other, similar situations arise.
So you keep saying there isn't any proof that the charges are racial motivated and
But you never mentioned location or the possibility that their actions would harm more than 1 person, which I find absolutely obviously relevant to the decision of whether or not to prosecute. Imho, a terrorist failing at blowing up a building full of 1000 kids committed a more heinous crime than one that failed to shoot a single person.
those of us who can grasp the obvious will keep discussing them.
Elitist bigot. Just because somebody disagrees with you doesn't mean they failed to grasp anything. If all you are looking for is a "harrumph harrumph I agree", it is not a discussion.
So explain to me how a white teenager who shoots and kills his brother doesn't deserve to be charged with anything, while the same prosecutor decides that a black teenager who didn't injure anyone needs an adult felony conviction to show her that "there are consequences to actions.".
First, you explain why you're discounting every other fact in the case and focusing on just race. Why not focus on sex? Why not focus on hair length, age, grade, # of friends, or nose size? Why not focus on the location of the accident: home vs. school?
Sufficently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.
Interesting. So... will you explain why you're incompetently ignoring the other facts of the case?
Proportionality. That's what the kid with a BB gun has to do with this. An accidental death caused by a white boy gets no punishment. An accidental chemical hazard that kills no one, but is caused by a black girl gets charged with felonies. That's disproportionate. What exactly is the non-racist explanation for that lack of proportionality?
Where is the non-racist explanation? It lies with every other fact of the cases that you're completely ignoring. The two key points being: location & laws the actual action broke.
Playing with a BB gun at home: not illegal.
Mixing chemicals on a playground to produce smoke and/or explosions: Illegal.
Using the "nobody got hurt" argument also justifies firing guns in the air during celebrations, speeding, & drunk driving... and will get you laughed all the way to jail there too.
If you're only stupid, you might get charged with a crime. If you're stupid and your stupid is doing something illegal, you will get charged with a crime.
If the experiment was done in the safety of her own home, there may not be a criminal case. Whereas if the BB accident happened on school grounds... there would be. This is why anecdotes and single case-studies alone are not evidence of a causal relationship.
There's nothing anywhere to indicate that blacks are genetically more prone to violence on any level.
Actually there is, but people are not willing to accept or even to discuss it because its not politically correct to entertain the possibility that evolution allowed more differences between the races than just skin color. Merely suggesting that you noticed a correlation gets you labeled a racist.
There is nothing anywhere to indicate that they are inherently inferior.
Depends on how you define inferior, doesn't it?
However one thing that does stand out is black culture in the US. Note how different it is in the US compared to everywhere else in the world.
Is it? Where did you get your information?
First generation or recent generation black Americans tend to be some of the most dignified people I know, and that includes blacks who have served in the military. But the ones who have been here for numerous generations, especially the inner city ones, are more often than not a bunch of douchebags. Many among them literally call having good grades "acting white" and look down upon it.
Ah, personal experience. Except you're discounting the fact that you're comparing immigrants to locals. The vast majority of white people I know are lazy good-for-nothing-I-DESERVE-x-y-z-gays-and-messicans-scare-me asshats. While the white immigrants I know are hard-working-never-see-their-kids-everybody-is-cool types. That is not a cultural difference either. It takes a lot of drive, effort, and personal responsibility to immigrate to a country across an ocean. Essentially you're seeing the "best-of-the-best" from the "blacks in other countries" crowd.
Again, the mere fact that they're black doesn't predicate them into being that way. However they themselves are equally guilty of establishing the stereotype that they behold. To blame everything on white people doesn't do anything to fix the problem, not to mention is just an asshole thing to do.
A nice middle class kid in college busted for possession is going to get a stern talking too and maybe a visit from the police, a poor kid relaxing after work is going to jail.
Is this about race or wealth? You seem to be getting confused as to the cause of the discrepancies in punishments.
The democrats are a center right party, we have no left party. The US has huge institutionalized race problems. You can simply compare punishments for the same crime meted out by our justice system to prove that.
"Simply" assuming a causal relationship because you see a correlation is one of the problems we're facing when dealing with race issues. Our justice system is far more biased against economic disparities than racial*. Minorities, having a larger percentage of poor, are more affected by the economic bias, making it appear to be racial.
There is nothing simple about it.
* To qualify for a public defender, you must make less than $10,800 per year if you're single. Meanwhile I see commercials advertising the cost of a drunk driving charge: > $10,000. Retainer fees for defense attorneys for minor crimes run $5000 - $15000. More serious felonies can cost you $15-$50,000 up front out of pocket. How many McDonald's burger flippers have $25gs laying about to get a decent lawyer when charged with murder? 0. They all get a public defender & plead out.
Mod those school officials +5 insightful. The technology has changed, but this is little more than a whoopie cushion on the principal's chair.
Send them home for a day to consider that they cost the school some money to fix the computer. Detention for a week... but thank you for not giving them a criminal record.
Like the minimal regulations of the housing and mortgage industry prior to 2010 or so?
Lol if you want to talk about failed policies, you're only talking about Democrats and Republicans as they're the only ones in power. Enjoy your examples.
Slashdot Mirror
But the goal of the ban is the same: protect local businesses by keeping money local instead of flowing out of state/city/county/country.
You missunderstood your parent. The point is not accessibility for new players. The point is that a super top geared level 80, who needed monthes on level 80 to get that gear is outgeared by a lvl 81 who played the new expansion for two or three hours.
Would you feel better if they called it "Modern Warfare", then released "Modern Warfare 2", then "Black Ops", then "Black Ops 2", then "Modern Warfare 3", and every time you bought a new version you had to level up from 1 to get access to all the cool weapons while all the people that never played a previous version were at the same level as you?
People want new content and new challenges. That is what WoW is trying to do, but with a continuos world so you can keep playing the same character. If WoW really is dying, it is because people are ready for something radically different. You can only choose a new wild card so many times in poker before people start to realize they're still just playing poker with a wild card...
The last WoW thing that got me truly interested in the game was the An Qiraj war effort. Something that actually affected the world in some way. When I rescue orphans, I want to see them running around Org until some Alliance brat kills them on the way to slay Thrall... who will remain dead until the Horde resurrect him. But instead the entire world is little more than a chat room to find people to join a Diablo style raid group.
How about a Sims/WoW mashup? Or better yet, Minecraft/WoW? At least a world-editor so people can make their own dungeons.
Aaaah... I miss the MUD days sometimes. Just spend a few minutes coding and you can have anything you want in there.
Question Answered.
Yep, it's all about the crazy pussy, few men can resist after the first hit.
Sometimes even the most tasty and tightest pussy is not worth it if she tries to kill you no matter what!
Says Richard Branson, CEO of Virgin.
Dr.?
Does he know any women who are not trying to kill him?
Know? Or ... know?
There's "yells at you to put the toilet seat down" crazy, and there's "shoot at your head" crazy. One is not a danger to your life and limb.
The other is a god damned honey badger in bed.
Lucky for me, my honey badger doesn't read /.
When in US history has the government been taken over by rogue elements?
Its happening right now.
In these cases did an Armed Citizenry actually stop said rogue elements?
tbd.
In the numerous cases where the government has actually oppressed it's people (slavery, segregation, etc.), can you name a single instance of the armed citizenry stopping them?
OUR government? Or *any* government?
Yeah, I don't like the Likud Charter either:
Which part of the charter claims the inferiority of "The Jew", or in this case the Palestinians? Or states that peace negotiations are only strategic moves?
None of it.
The comparison is still invalid. Wildly invalid.
I get that Israel does some shady stuff, but its really important on an issue as touchy as this to try to be objective, and refrain from hyperbole. Neither side has been great about this, both sides have considerable grievances, but neither side is as bad as WW2 Germany or current North Korea.
Perspective, rationality, guys.
This is all I want. I'm get worked up by the Rush Limbaugh quality opinions.
As soon as the rockets and suicide bombings stop, I'll start attacking the 2nd biggest threat to peace in the Israeli/Palestinian issue: Israel.
You mean this rocket right here?
No, I mean the ones the anti-semitic organization Hamas, who the Palestinians elected to run their government, continually fire at innocent Jewish families. The ones you never have to live through. The ones you so easily make light of and excuse. The fact that Israel has better technology doesn't make the people firing those rockets any less evil.
More problems for tired Zionist apologia: Israel's justification for starting the 1967 war was the Egyptian blockade of the Straits of Tiran
I haven't apologized for anything. I merely point out facts that both sides, mostly anti-semitics, like to ignore.
But that means that Palestinian attacks in response to the total blockade of Gaza are perfectly justified by Israeli rules.
Sure kid. And its perfectly justified if Manson gets out and murders some more because we were evil enough to put him in prison. You're a typical anti-semite refusing to acknowledge that you would yourself would never live with the shennanigans the Palestinians are pulling and would probably respond in the same way.
The Palestinians are entitled to all of the West Bank and East Jerusalem, but they've been willing to make concessions on that in order to get a state of their own.
Of course they do. As soon as Jordan gave up their own claim to the land it should go to some randomly chosen 3rd party that promises to kick out and/or murder some portion of the population. And the Jews that have been living there for the last 2000 years, or those that came at the invite of the Ottoman Emperor be damned, right? Just like the ones that were murdered or expelled from Gaza in 1929.
But Israel keeps making more and more draconian demands, or pulls out of negotiations.
They both have at various points.
Because Israel isn't interested in peace.
I'm sorry, who isn't interested in peace? Have you even read the Hamas charter?
It's interested in land, and waiting out the clock until it becomes a matter of taking land from someone's great-great grandchild to give to someone else's great-great grandchild.
Probably. But until the rockets stop, I don't give a fuck. You don't target children. Ever.
Frankly, I agree with Sir Gerald Kaufman of the UK in his views that Israel is no better than certain German Fascists in their treatment of the Palestinians.
I don't recall German Jews ever stating they wanted to march every German into the Rhine (Ya, I know that quote doesn't come from a Palestinian, but the sentiment does and it predates the formation of Israel), so I really don't see how the comparison is valid.
“The current Israeli government ruthlessly and cynically exploits the continuing guilt among gentiles over the slaughter of Jews in the Holocaust as justification for their murder of Palestinians,
Actually their most commonly cited reason for "murdering the Palestinians" is something along the lines of "INCOMING ROCKET!" I really don't ever hear the Holocaust being brought up except to compare Israeli Jews to the Nazis.
And before some butt-hurt heeb starts pulling out his "you disagree with Israel, you therefor are an anti-semite" card... Sir Gerald Kaufman is himself a Jew.
Uncle Tom doesn't care what race you are.
I hope that someday more land can be given to Palestine and both sides can learn to live in peace -- but considering this dispute seems driven by ultra-conservative religious wing-nuts on all sides, I don't think that will happen without total annihilation of the region.
The Palestinians have been rejecting a two-state solution for more than 80 years. So you're probably right on the mutual annihilation...
No, the US funnels far more overt support and resources to its bellicose little buddies. I don't see North Korea shifting the DMZ southward every year, leveling South Korean cities so North Korean settlers can move onto the land. China doesn't throw an international diplomatic hissy-fit at the mere suggestion that South Korea should be allowed to have its own autonomous government, much less one armed and hostile to the expansion of North Korean power.
I don't see the South electing a government with the stated goal of expelling or murdering every resident of the North, flatly stating that any and all negotiations are purely strategic moves to delay fighting when deemed necessary, that the commonly accepted "two state solution" will never be allowed to happen, or refusing to acknowledge the historical incidents predating the formation of their Northern neighbor and otherwise implicitly believing that no Northern citizen has a right to live.
So I guess neither of us like the analogy.
No, you weren't. Neither was I. You appear to just be a pedantic shit .
Don't know why I'm even replying to this, but just to give you an (obvious) idea how far I read through you post.
If you don't want to discuss things, why even respond in the first place... unless I was right on the money. fine with me.
Both.
Being either poor or non-white means you get a worse treatment.
So now the question is, are you saying race, or culture?
See, the poor side of things can be reached by following logic in a capitalist society: having wealth is an advantage in nearly any situation. The race and culture side though is not so easily followed. When the entire argument is based on comparing this science case to the BB case and citing as the only evidence the fact that one kid is white while the other is black, but not explaining how any other variable is being discounted, the entire argument is so full of holes you might as well be preaching from the bible rather than discussing a topic.
When dealing with persecution, violence is one means to an end. But the choice to use or not use it does not, by itself, mean that its users lack or have a genetic or cultural preference for that tool. There are many other instances of persecution that have not been responded to with violence, some of which taking places at race level proportions: The Jews, Ghandi, and Tibetan monks come immediately to mind, though Malcolm X vs. MLK may be a more relevant example.
While race issues may be the source of many problems (And is absolutely the accepted reason behind the start of the anti-drug laws), I am not convinced that our justice system is tainted with rampant racism or that these two cases are examples of the same, as is being claimed. I think money or the lack thereof is far more influential in deciding prosecutions, with racism being the domain of individuals, not the system. I don't have the psychopathic personality necessary to be an effective prosecutor today (I would not have filed charges against this girl), but I also see no reason to believe this D.A. based her (his? I don't recall and don't have the energy to check now) decision on race, especially given the world's history of sexism.
The "boys will be boys" argument has worked very well for boys of every race just as much as the "girls should be quiet in the kitchen" argument has sent girls home from school for being witches and cursing their teachers with sickness. We may have never heard about Steubenville if not for the girl's suicide because everybody there, including the victim's best friends, think the victim was at fault... She shouldn't have gotten drunk at the party. And yet not a single "this is a race issue" post has explained how sex is not influencing the prosecutors decision. (And just in case the D.A. is female, remember that Uncle Tom ruins the 'chicks dont hate on other chicks' argument too).
As soon as race is involved it seems, science and logic goes out the window.
frank_adrian314159 offered a wild, ignorant, incorrect, extremist interpretation of the libertarian platform equating minimal regulation to no regulation and basically claiming all commerce would grind to a halt under the boot of a single mega-corporate monopoly squashing all competition before it starts. I don't need to precisely and clearly define minimal in a way to satisfy you or anybody else's personal definition to make the point that it is different from any of the millions of possible "no regulation" examples.
They're the Libertarian party... not Anarchist.
Ultimately though I was disagreeing with 1 pedantic point, not the argument as a whole. I'm not sure of any rational person that would discount the influence gang/rap culture has on people. Desensitization to violence increases the likelihood of resorting to violence to solve problems. (I'll get crucified here if I dare mention how that relates to violent video games...) It is the same brain processes that cause things like mandatory wearing of school IDs or warrantless wiretaps to be so dangerous: If we, as children, are raised with these things happening and no stink is raised, we come to view them as normal and won't argue as other, similar situations arise.
4 o'clock. Keyboard warrior needs caffeine, badly.
So you keep saying there isn't any proof that the charges are racial motivated and
But you never mentioned location or the possibility that their actions would harm more than 1 person, which I find absolutely obviously relevant to the decision of whether or not to prosecute. Imho, a terrorist failing at blowing up a building full of 1000 kids committed a more heinous crime than one that failed to shoot a single person.
those of us who can grasp the obvious will keep discussing them.
Elitist bigot. Just because somebody disagrees with you doesn't mean they failed to grasp anything. If all you are looking for is a "harrumph harrumph I agree", it is not a discussion.
I'd like to believe that too. I really would.
So explain to me how a white teenager who shoots and kills his brother doesn't deserve to be charged with anything, while the same prosecutor decides that a black teenager who didn't injure anyone needs an adult felony conviction to show her that "there are consequences to actions.".
First, you explain why you're discounting every other fact in the case and focusing on just race. Why not focus on sex? Why not focus on hair length, age, grade, # of friends, or nose size? Why not focus on the location of the accident: home vs. school?
Sufficently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.
Interesting. So... will you explain why you're incompetently ignoring the other facts of the case?
Proportionality. That's what the kid with a BB gun has to do with this. An accidental death caused by a white boy gets no punishment. An accidental chemical hazard that kills no one, but is caused by a black girl gets charged with felonies. That's disproportionate. What exactly is the non-racist explanation for that lack of proportionality?
Where is the non-racist explanation? It lies with every other fact of the cases that you're completely ignoring. The two key points being: location & laws the actual action broke.
Playing with a BB gun at home: not illegal.
Mixing chemicals on a playground to produce smoke and/or explosions: Illegal.
Using the "nobody got hurt" argument also justifies firing guns in the air during celebrations, speeding, & drunk driving... and will get you laughed all the way to jail there too.
If you're only stupid, you might get charged with a crime. If you're stupid and your stupid is doing something illegal, you will get charged with a crime.
If the experiment was done in the safety of her own home, there may not be a criminal case. Whereas if the BB accident happened on school grounds... there would be. This is why anecdotes and single case-studies alone are not evidence of a causal relationship.
There's nothing anywhere to indicate that blacks are genetically more prone to violence on any level.
Actually there is, but people are not willing to accept or even to discuss it because its not politically correct to entertain the possibility that evolution allowed more differences between the races than just skin color. Merely suggesting that you noticed a correlation gets you labeled a racist.
There is nothing anywhere to indicate that they are inherently inferior.
Depends on how you define inferior, doesn't it?
However one thing that does stand out is black culture in the US. Note how different it is in the US compared to everywhere else in the world.
Is it? Where did you get your information?
First generation or recent generation black Americans tend to be some of the most dignified people I know, and that includes blacks who have served in the military. But the ones who have been here for numerous generations, especially the inner city ones, are more often than not a bunch of douchebags. Many among them literally call having good grades "acting white" and look down upon it.
Ah, personal experience. Except you're discounting the fact that you're comparing immigrants to locals. The vast majority of white people I know are lazy good-for-nothing-I-DESERVE-x-y-z-gays-and-messicans-scare-me asshats. While the white immigrants I know are hard-working-never-see-their-kids-everybody-is-cool types. That is not a cultural difference either. It takes a lot of drive, effort, and personal responsibility to immigrate to a country across an ocean. Essentially you're seeing the "best-of-the-best" from the "blacks in other countries" crowd.
Again, the mere fact that they're black doesn't predicate them into being that way. However they themselves are equally guilty of establishing the stereotype that they behold. To blame everything on white people doesn't do anything to fix the problem, not to mention is just an asshole thing to do.
No discussion necessary there. People are stupid.
A nice middle class kid in college busted for possession is going to get a stern talking too and maybe a visit from the police, a poor kid relaxing after work is going to jail.
Is this about race or wealth? You seem to be getting confused as to the cause of the discrepancies in punishments.
The democrats are a center right party, we have no left party. The US has huge institutionalized race problems. You can simply compare punishments for the same crime meted out by our justice system to prove that.
"Simply" assuming a causal relationship because you see a correlation is one of the problems we're facing when dealing with race issues. Our justice system is far more biased against economic disparities than racial*. Minorities, having a larger percentage of poor, are more affected by the economic bias, making it appear to be racial.
There is nothing simple about it.
* To qualify for a public defender, you must make less than $10,800 per year if you're single. Meanwhile I see commercials advertising the cost of a drunk driving charge: > $10,000. Retainer fees for defense attorneys for minor crimes run $5000 - $15000. More serious felonies can cost you $15-$50,000 up front out of pocket. How many McDonald's burger flippers have $25gs laying about to get a decent lawyer when charged with murder? 0. They all get a public defender & plead out.
Send them home for a day to consider that they cost the school some money to fix the computer. Detention for a week... but thank you for not giving them a criminal record.
Like the minimal regulations of the housing and mortgage industry prior to 2010 or so?
Lol if you want to talk about failed policies, you're only talking about Democrats and Republicans as they're the only ones in power. Enjoy your examples.