At the very least, education of girls is seen as a western objective, regardless of the curriculum. The fact that a lot of these female education/empowerment projects are funded by westerners makes it really easy to suggest that it has secret agendas. They can also claim that western education of girls has led to numerous problems in western countries with e.g. premarital sex, abortion, and "loose behavior." All of those arguments carry a lot of weight in Muslim countries.
Encouraging education could mean anything from "learn how to kill the infidels" to "learn why religious superstition is dumb." Just saying that Islam encourages education is rather meaningless.
You seem to be assuming that superstition (by which I assume you mean religious belief) is the ultimate motivation for the actions taken by religious extremists. That's not right though. There are plenty of motivating factors in human nature that have nothing to do with superstition. For instance, a big motivation in Islamic culture is pride. If you read the rhetoric of extremist Muslim leaders, pride is a big factor. They are being "humiliated" by allowing US army bases in Muslim countries, etc. Not "We aren't obeying Allah and we're scared that we'll get in trouble", but "we are being humiliated and we don't like that."
And obviously pride is not related to superstition. Atheists have pride.
There's also the chance that the "we're afraid" line is what they're telling Western media. The real reason could be "Well we don't really have a strong argument for why this is bad, so we're not pursuing it."
Even among the people in Afghanistan who oppose the Taliban, Islamic fundamentalism is rampant. The Northern Alliance, for instance, is not exactly the most liberal group around.
At a very high price, something like half a million dollars per job. With that kind of funding who knows what other businesses could have taken root and been even better than the cars. Also, one of the big reasons car companies are making money now is they renegotiated union contracts. They could have done that without a dime from us. In reality we bailed out the unions, not the companies.
pre-existing conditions are starting to be covered
True but at a very high cost. Health care costs have only increased since the "Affordable" Care Act.
Health care and hospitals should not be for profit. It doesn't work and is why things are so expensive
Even in non-profits people draw salaries. It's not just volunteer work. Doctor salaries are the biggest component of health care costs, so unless by "not for profit" you mean imposing salary caps on the entire health care industry, what difference will it make?
It doesn't work and is why things are so expensive
Okay let's say these places have a 20% profit margin. If you cut that to 0, within 1 or 2 years health care costs would have risen enough to erase that difference, then we'd be in the same boat. Cutting profits is not the answer.
that and the fact that so many people are outside the system but we have to (and should) give them care when needed
That doesn't increase the cost of health care though. If everybody was paying, *possibly* the average cost would come down, but the total cost would be the same or even greater since people tend to use it more when they have it. Since a lot of people without insurance are poor, they're not going to be paying the real cost anyway, so you and I are still paying for their share. Universal coverage saves nobody any money, it just makes doctors and hospitals happy because fewer people will skip out on a bill.
At the very least he probably belongs to his state's talking book library. They send tapes (and now flash cartridges) through the mail since blind people have more difficulty getting to the library than most. Braille is much more expensive but some states send that too.
Calling various historical groups "taliban style" is about as effective as calling various historical leaders "hitler style". Nobody takes you seriously and you sound dumb.
I make the same argument all the time. There are a ton of things that are sins -- and forget obscure rules like tattoos. How about stuff in the 10 commandments like working on the sabbath day, taking the Lord's name in vain, adultery, lying, and the feeling of envy? Yeah, people who covet their neighbor's house are breaking an actual commandment. Most Christians don't say that Jesus did away with the 10 commandments like they say about those rules about tattoos. And yet nobody spends much time protesting e.g. marketing firms that foster envy.
A straight person living in a society that was overwhelmingly gay in a world that was overwhelmingly gay probably would be asked to bear that burden, unless you think gay people are naturally more tolerant than straight people. And maybe the heterophobic gays in this society would have a point. If society had evolved in such a way, there must be a reason for it.
I'm no hypocrite in this matter. I have things that I suppress that I really would like to do, but are illegal and frowned upon by a huge segment of society. And I don't have rights groups championing my cause and making me feel better. Sometimes I act on these urges. But I certainly don't go around crying that people are unfair and intolerant and that everybody should change because they're all bigots. I'm tolerant of a certain degree of intolerance I guess. You have to be, because people are naturally intolerant.
Gay sex is definitely a choice (unless you're raped). Gay desires... who knows. I don't think we know enough about desire to conclude anything. Look at Stockholm syndrome.. people who have no desire to be kidnapped and controlled end up liking their captor. Did they have a choice in that? Maybe not.. and yet at the same time it feels very wrong to say that they have a new fundamental attribute of love for their captor, doesn't it? Everybody in society wishes those people the best of luck in losing that desire and returning to normal. Nobody says "Oh, just accept that you now love your captor and feel bad about him being punished."
But what is being gay, anyway? There are men who have sex with men who don't consider themselves gay, because they aren't attracted to men. There are men who have desire for men who don't consider themselves gay because they don't have sex with men. From that perspective, being gay has to be through self-identification, in which case it is definitely a choice, not a fundamental attribute. An atheist might wake up one day and decide his life is feeling empty, so he's going to become religious. A very fit, in-shape guy might wake up one day and decide he doesn't care anymore, so he becomes lazy and fat. A gay guy could very well wake up one day and decide he's not gay. So, aside from the simplistic study of animal behavior, what makes YOU think that being gay is a fundamental attribute? I think there are very few fundamental attributes, really. I've realized there are even fewer than I used to think after reading on slashdot about an experiment finding that magnetic fields affect the human sense of morality.
What does fundamental attribute even mean, btw? As we see from Stockholm syndrome, the magnetic experiment, cases of child abuse and domestic abuse, etc, people are really dang malleable.
I guess I've just never heard a concise example of why homosexuality is "wrong" other than the classic "Read the bible, heathen!".
Have you ever heard a concise example of why anything is wrong that doesn't eventually fall into "Just because" territory? I don't think it's possible. The answer isn't even "read the bible" -- I think most people who dislike homosexuality just dislike homosexuality.
There's nothing wrong with people who don't like or support homosexuality. Some people just don't like it. That's the way it is. It's no different than not liking chocolate ice cream. Maybe it's gross to you. Maybe you secretly crave it and are ashamed. Whatever, why does it matter? Just because I don't want to be gay, and I find gay sex nasty, doesn't mean that I wouldn't hire a gay guy, or I wouldn't share a table with a gay guy. Just like the fact that I find the thought of sex between two hugely obese people nasty doesn't mean I'm a fatophobe, I wouldn't hire a fat person, or I wouldn't share a table with a fat person.
I support gay rights, but only to the extent that gays should have the same rights as others and shouldn't be discriminated against for being gay. As time goes on, I'm getting really frustrated at the gay agenda though. One kid bullying another kid because he's gay (instead of because he's fat) makes national news, draws comments from the President, and gets legislators busy drafting new laws to make examples of those nasty gay-hating straight kids. Ooh, automatic hate crime! That's the ticket! To me that's bullshit. As soon as a group goes for special treatment, I start losing all respect for that group. There are probably plenty of gays who don't want special treatment, but unfortunately they don't make headlines.
You think gay marriage is a fundamental civil right? On what grounds?
Let's compare it to the right to vote.
For marriage, there's an actor and a target. The actor and target have to be different sexes, but everybody has the chance to be the actor and everybody has the chance to be the target.
For voting, there's also an actor and a target. Originally, the actor was required to be male in all cases. So not everybody had the same chance. That's called discrimination. Later the discriminatory aspect was removed... but let's see how. The law certainly didn't become "any adult can vote for any other adult."
Are such limitations on the connection between actor and target valid? To vote, the actor has to be a citizen, but the target doesn't. Thus there are invalid combinations of actor and target for voting. Do you think that's violating the fundamental civil right of voting? Hopefully not. So can you explain how limiting the combinations of actor and target in the case of marriage IS violating a fundamental civil right?
It's funny when people try to state the principle of marriage as "the fundamental right to marry an adult you love." I guess these people have not heard of unrequited love. In other words, there are plenty of heteros who do not get to marry the person they love. In that case it's certainly not a right at all, let alone a fundamental right.
Others state is as "the fundamental right of two adults to marry each other." Well that's also wrong. For instance if one of the adults is already married, they can't marry again before getting a divorce. How do you explain that in terms of fundamental civil rights? Imagine if your right to free speech was limited like that... oh you've already had your free speech for the year, you'll have to take back what you said, or collect and destroy anything you printed, before you can do it again. Another example is if the two loving adults are closely related, like mother and (adult) child. They can't get married. Imagine if your right to free speech was "You have free speech, but there are certain people you can't talk to."
Let's look at the accessibility of this "fundamental right." Some people have severe problems that make nobody want to marry them. Think of it terms of race.. "some people are so black that nobody wants to hire them." Well that's illegal. But having most of the women in the society team up and say "Nope we're not marrying that guy" is not illegal. What does that mean?
I'd say marriage for anyone, straight or gay, is not a "fundamental civil right." There are just too many differences with our real civil rights.
Until the two concepts are separated you can't be for one and against the other.
You're admitting there are two concepts, so conceptually they are already separated. The law encompasses both but it's not up to you to determine which concept a person is internally using to justify their position. You can be against gay marriage and not be anti-gay, unless you're equating the letter of the law with morality.
If everybody gets these so-called benefits, why not just abandon state legal marriage altogether and make the benefits available to everybody, married or not? Why discriminate against single people?
All the usual crap people list as marriage benefits like income pooling for tax purposes and sharing of benefits from insurance should be available to anybody. Why can't I temporarily share my insurance with my buddy who just lost his job, but now some gay guys can marry each other and share insurance?
Any assignment of benefits to only one group of people ("married", regardless of whether that includes gays) is by definition discriminatory. So I have a hard time believing that gay marriage proponents are *really* interested in equality or fairness.
If expanding the laws to include the first group of people does not harm the second group in any way, why on earth should the laws not be expanded?
There are a ton of laws that are about morality, not protection of people. Many of them have to do with sex and drugs. Why is pot illegal? Why is bestiality illegal? Polygamy? Gay marriage?
The Miller test (also called the Three Prong Obscenity Test[1]), is the United States Supreme Court's test for determining whether speech or expression can be labeled obscene
That tells you all you need to know. We have a whole cast of laws about obscenity, based on what people find obscene. Not dangerous, not harmful.. obscene.
Sucks but that's the way it is. An absolute shit-ton of people support it, too.
So you get to break a rule that's already been agreed on, (assault/battery etc are illegal) and impose your own rule that nobody else agreed to, or even likely knows about, (fists are fine, guns aren't, knives ????)
What.. that doesn't make sense.
Nobody said you don't get punished for assault/battery.
Nobody said you get to impose rules that nobody else agreed to.
And shooting someone after they threaten you with a gun isn't breaking my own rule.
What are you trying to say???
I'll try to explain more of what I said. What is a fight? Does it have to involve fists? No. Let's say I'm at a bar. The bartender pours me a drink and I feel like he shorted me. So I say "Hey you asshole you shorted me."
I've started a fight. It's a verbal altercation. I've escalated from neutral conversation (ordering drinks, etc) to insults and accusations.
Now let's say the bartender pulls out a shotgun and points it at me.
Now he's escalated from insults and accusations to a threat of death.
Do you see that my initial insult that "started" this fight is no longer relevant? There is absolutely no justification for pulling a gun on someone because they insulted you. It's such a different level that it has to be considered as a fresh incident.
And yes, the same goes with bare hands vs. guns and knives. The bar is busy. Someone tries to get by me and bumps into me, spilling my drink. I push them with my hands and make them stumble. That's assault (maybe). But that does not give them the right to cut me or shoot me and claim defense. Surely you see that? I thought this point was fairly obvious.
I don't believe that. If you start a verbal argument with someone, and then they try to kill you, you have every right to self defense even though you started it. There has to be recognition of the difference between levels of confrontation, otherwise the law in Arizona makes no sense.
I'm firmly pro-Zimmerman in this incident, and I would say Yes, there are circumstances under which Martin could have shot Zimmerman.
I could easily imagine this happening:
* Zimmerman approaches Martin, gun at his hip, asks what he's doing * Martin, gun at his hap, responds "None of your business" * Zimmerman pulls his gun and points it at Martin and repeats his question * Martin shoots Zimmerman
I would support that 100%. It would be unfortunate, just as this case was, but I would not be calling for Maritn's arrest, or calling for it to be classified as a hate crime as many racists are calling for in this case.
That's all imagination though. It didn't happen. Zimmerman didn't pull his gun first -- otherwise he never would have gotten those wounds. So based on what seems to have happened, no, Martin would not be justified in shooting Zimmerman.
Remember the feeling you have right now, next time a black guy is arrested and brought in under a pretense. After all, MAYBE he did something wrong, shouldn't we let the wheels of justice turn, even if some innocents get crushed under the millstone?
It's bullshit. Every level of the system should have ways for people to escape based on reasonable judgment calls. If the cop on the scene thinks everything is ok, it ends there. If the magistrate thinks everything is ok, it ends there. If the DA thinks everything is ok, it ends there. etc
Notice that at no point can the person escalate the issue past the other checks. The cop can't say "Eh I think you're guilty, no trial for you." That's the way the system is designed.
Again, I hope you remember your small-minded feeling of justice that you have right now next time an innocent person that you actually sympathetic to isn't given the benefit of the doubt.
Huh... what does paying inordinate attention mean? In the articles I read, Zimmerman claimed that Martin was stopping in front of houses and staring at them, that is inordinate attention in my book. Maybe Martin didn't recognize the house he was looking for since he didn't really live there, which is plausible.. but it's still inordinate attention for someone who is supposed to be there. Definitely worthy of some kind of intervention.
For the record, I have a little experience with being on Martin's side of this. One time I was sitting in my car in front of my parents' house on the street at night for a while. A neighbor who didn't recognize me came up to my car and asked who I was. I didn't fly into a rage and accuse them of racism, or get out and attack them.
Another time, I was visiting the horse barn in their neighborhood in the evening. Apparently someone saw a strange car parked there and called the cops. A sherriff came out and talked to me.
I don't see the big deal. People are cautious of strangers, and rightly so. If Martin had acted respectful and courteous, as a stranger in the neighborhood SHOULD act, none of this would have happened.
That's silly, what level of injury would you require before letting someone defend themselves with deadly force? If they are clearly and obviously injured even on a grainy surveillance video there's a good chance that they have severe head trauma and would be past the point of being ABLE to defend themselves.
There are no eyewitnesses that saw Zimmerman shoot Martin. But we accept Zimmerman's word that he shot Martin. The physical evidence is that Martin was shot.
On the same token, Zimmerman says Martin attacked him. There are no eyewitnesses, but again there is physical evidence.
So I'm assuming with your ultra high standards, you don't believe that Zimmerman shot Martin?
Slashdot Mirror
At the very least, education of girls is seen as a western objective, regardless of the curriculum. The fact that a lot of these female education/empowerment projects are funded by westerners makes it really easy to suggest that it has secret agendas. They can also claim that western education of girls has led to numerous problems in western countries with e.g. premarital sex, abortion, and "loose behavior." All of those arguments carry a lot of weight in Muslim countries.
Encouraging education could mean anything from "learn how to kill the infidels" to "learn why religious superstition is dumb." Just saying that Islam encourages education is rather meaningless.
You seem to be assuming that superstition (by which I assume you mean religious belief) is the ultimate motivation for the actions taken by religious extremists. That's not right though. There are plenty of motivating factors in human nature that have nothing to do with superstition. For instance, a big motivation in Islamic culture is pride. If you read the rhetoric of extremist Muslim leaders, pride is a big factor. They are being "humiliated" by allowing US army bases in Muslim countries, etc. Not "We aren't obeying Allah and we're scared that we'll get in trouble", but "we are being humiliated and we don't like that."
And obviously pride is not related to superstition. Atheists have pride.
There's also the chance that the "we're afraid" line is what they're telling Western media. The real reason could be "Well we don't really have a strong argument for why this is bad, so we're not pursuing it."
Even among the people in Afghanistan who oppose the Taliban, Islamic fundamentalism is rampant. The Northern Alliance, for instance, is not exactly the most liberal group around.
The auto industry was saved with all those jobs
At a very high price, something like half a million dollars per job. With that kind of funding who knows what other businesses could have taken root and been even better than the cars. Also, one of the big reasons car companies are making money now is they renegotiated union contracts. They could have done that without a dime from us. In reality we bailed out the unions, not the companies.
pre-existing conditions are starting to be covered
True but at a very high cost. Health care costs have only increased since the "Affordable" Care Act.
Health care and hospitals should not be for profit. It doesn't work and is why things are so expensive
Even in non-profits people draw salaries. It's not just volunteer work. Doctor salaries are the biggest component of health care costs, so unless by "not for profit" you mean imposing salary caps on the entire health care industry, what difference will it make?
It doesn't work and is why things are so expensive
Okay let's say these places have a 20% profit margin. If you cut that to 0, within 1 or 2 years health care costs would have risen enough to erase that difference, then we'd be in the same boat. Cutting profits is not the answer.
that and the fact that so many people are outside the system but we have to (and should) give them care when needed
That doesn't increase the cost of health care though. If everybody was paying, *possibly* the average cost would come down, but the total cost would be the same or even greater since people tend to use it more when they have it. Since a lot of people without insurance are poor, they're not going to be paying the real cost anyway, so you and I are still paying for their share. Universal coverage saves nobody any money, it just makes doctors and hospitals happy because fewer people will skip out on a bill.
At the very least he probably belongs to his state's talking book library. They send tapes (and now flash cartridges) through the mail since blind people have more difficulty getting to the library than most. Braille is much more expensive but some states send that too.
Calling various historical groups "taliban style" is about as effective as calling various historical leaders "hitler style". Nobody takes you seriously and you sound dumb.
I make the same argument all the time. There are a ton of things that are sins -- and forget obscure rules like tattoos. How about stuff in the 10 commandments like working on the sabbath day, taking the Lord's name in vain, adultery, lying, and the feeling of envy? Yeah, people who covet their neighbor's house are breaking an actual commandment. Most Christians don't say that Jesus did away with the 10 commandments like they say about those rules about tattoos. And yet nobody spends much time protesting e.g. marketing firms that foster envy.
and just deluded in believing that separate-but-equal will work this time.
It seems to work well for bathrooms. How do you explain that?
A straight person living in a society that was overwhelmingly gay in a world that was overwhelmingly gay probably would be asked to bear that burden, unless you think gay people are naturally more tolerant than straight people. And maybe the heterophobic gays in this society would have a point. If society had evolved in such a way, there must be a reason for it.
I'm no hypocrite in this matter. I have things that I suppress that I really would like to do, but are illegal and frowned upon by a huge segment of society. And I don't have rights groups championing my cause and making me feel better. Sometimes I act on these urges. But I certainly don't go around crying that people are unfair and intolerant and that everybody should change because they're all bigots. I'm tolerant of a certain degree of intolerance I guess. You have to be, because people are naturally intolerant.
Gay sex is definitely a choice (unless you're raped). Gay desires... who knows. I don't think we know enough about desire to conclude anything. Look at Stockholm syndrome.. people who have no desire to be kidnapped and controlled end up liking their captor. Did they have a choice in that? Maybe not.. and yet at the same time it feels very wrong to say that they have a new fundamental attribute of love for their captor, doesn't it? Everybody in society wishes those people the best of luck in losing that desire and returning to normal. Nobody says "Oh, just accept that you now love your captor and feel bad about him being punished."
But what is being gay, anyway? There are men who have sex with men who don't consider themselves gay, because they aren't attracted to men. There are men who have desire for men who don't consider themselves gay because they don't have sex with men. From that perspective, being gay has to be through self-identification, in which case it is definitely a choice, not a fundamental attribute. An atheist might wake up one day and decide his life is feeling empty, so he's going to become religious. A very fit, in-shape guy might wake up one day and decide he doesn't care anymore, so he becomes lazy and fat. A gay guy could very well wake up one day and decide he's not gay. So, aside from the simplistic study of animal behavior, what makes YOU think that being gay is a fundamental attribute? I think there are very few fundamental attributes, really. I've realized there are even fewer than I used to think after reading on slashdot about an experiment finding that magnetic fields affect the human sense of morality.
What does fundamental attribute even mean, btw? As we see from Stockholm syndrome, the magnetic experiment, cases of child abuse and domestic abuse, etc, people are really dang malleable.
I guess I've just never heard a concise example of why homosexuality is "wrong" other than the classic "Read the bible, heathen!".
Have you ever heard a concise example of why anything is wrong that doesn't eventually fall into "Just because" territory? I don't think it's possible. The answer isn't even "read the bible" -- I think most people who dislike homosexuality just dislike homosexuality.
There's nothing wrong with people who don't like or support homosexuality. Some people just don't like it. That's the way it is. It's no different than not liking chocolate ice cream. Maybe it's gross to you. Maybe you secretly crave it and are ashamed. Whatever, why does it matter? Just because I don't want to be gay, and I find gay sex nasty, doesn't mean that I wouldn't hire a gay guy, or I wouldn't share a table with a gay guy. Just like the fact that I find the thought of sex between two hugely obese people nasty doesn't mean I'm a fatophobe, I wouldn't hire a fat person, or I wouldn't share a table with a fat person.
I support gay rights, but only to the extent that gays should have the same rights as others and shouldn't be discriminated against for being gay. As time goes on, I'm getting really frustrated at the gay agenda though. One kid bullying another kid because he's gay (instead of because he's fat) makes national news, draws comments from the President, and gets legislators busy drafting new laws to make examples of those nasty gay-hating straight kids. Ooh, automatic hate crime! That's the ticket! To me that's bullshit. As soon as a group goes for special treatment, I start losing all respect for that group. There are probably plenty of gays who don't want special treatment, but unfortunately they don't make headlines.
You think gay marriage is a fundamental civil right? On what grounds?
Let's compare it to the right to vote.
For marriage, there's an actor and a target. The actor and target have to be different sexes, but everybody has the chance to be the actor and everybody has the chance to be the target.
For voting, there's also an actor and a target. Originally, the actor was required to be male in all cases. So not everybody had the same chance. That's called discrimination. Later the discriminatory aspect was removed... but let's see how. The law certainly didn't become "any adult can vote for any other adult."
Are such limitations on the connection between actor and target valid? To vote, the actor has to be a citizen, but the target doesn't. Thus there are invalid combinations of actor and target for voting. Do you think that's violating the fundamental civil right of voting? Hopefully not. So can you explain how limiting the combinations of actor and target in the case of marriage IS violating a fundamental civil right?
It's funny when people try to state the principle of marriage as "the fundamental right to marry an adult you love." I guess these people have not heard of unrequited love. In other words, there are plenty of heteros who do not get to marry the person they love. In that case it's certainly not a right at all, let alone a fundamental right.
Others state is as "the fundamental right of two adults to marry each other." Well that's also wrong. For instance if one of the adults is already married, they can't marry again before getting a divorce. How do you explain that in terms of fundamental civil rights? Imagine if your right to free speech was limited like that... oh you've already had your free speech for the year, you'll have to take back what you said, or collect and destroy anything you printed, before you can do it again. Another example is if the two loving adults are closely related, like mother and (adult) child. They can't get married. Imagine if your right to free speech was "You have free speech, but there are certain people you can't talk to."
Let's look at the accessibility of this "fundamental right." Some people have severe problems that make nobody want to marry them. Think of it terms of race.. "some people are so black that nobody wants to hire them." Well that's illegal. But having most of the women in the society team up and say "Nope we're not marrying that guy" is not illegal. What does that mean?
I'd say marriage for anyone, straight or gay, is not a "fundamental civil right." There are just too many differences with our real civil rights.
Until the two concepts are separated you can't be for one and against the other.
You're admitting there are two concepts, so conceptually they are already separated. The law encompasses both but it's not up to you to determine which concept a person is internally using to justify their position. You can be against gay marriage and not be anti-gay, unless you're equating the letter of the law with morality.
If everybody gets these so-called benefits, why not just abandon state legal marriage altogether and make the benefits available to everybody, married or not? Why discriminate against single people?
All the usual crap people list as marriage benefits like income pooling for tax purposes and sharing of benefits from insurance should be available to anybody. Why can't I temporarily share my insurance with my buddy who just lost his job, but now some gay guys can marry each other and share insurance?
Any assignment of benefits to only one group of people ("married", regardless of whether that includes gays) is by definition discriminatory. So I have a hard time believing that gay marriage proponents are *really* interested in equality or fairness.
If expanding the laws to include the first group of people does not harm the second group in any way, why on earth should the laws not be expanded?
There are a ton of laws that are about morality, not protection of people. Many of them have to do with sex and drugs. Why is pot illegal? Why is bestiality illegal? Polygamy? Gay marriage?
Just look at the Miller test:
The Miller test (also called the Three Prong Obscenity Test[1]), is the United States Supreme Court's test for determining whether speech or expression can be labeled obscene
That tells you all you need to know. We have a whole cast of laws about obscenity, based on what people find obscene. Not dangerous, not harmful.. obscene.
Sucks but that's the way it is. An absolute shit-ton of people support it, too.
And they want the same set of laws - to allow to adults who love each other to get married.
That's not the law. You can't marry an adult just because you love them.
You can't marry your mother/father. You can't marry your adult child. You can't marry five adults at the same time.
Why is it such a stretch to also say "And you can't marry someone of the same sex?"
So you get to break a rule that's already been agreed on, (assault/battery etc are illegal)
and impose your own rule that nobody else agreed to, or even likely knows about, (fists are fine, guns aren't, knives ????)
What.. that doesn't make sense.
Nobody said you don't get punished for assault/battery.
Nobody said you get to impose rules that nobody else agreed to.
And shooting someone after they threaten you with a gun isn't breaking my own rule.
What are you trying to say???
I'll try to explain more of what I said. What is a fight? Does it have to involve fists? No. Let's say I'm at a bar. The bartender pours me a drink and I feel like he shorted me. So I say "Hey you asshole you shorted me."
I've started a fight. It's a verbal altercation. I've escalated from neutral conversation (ordering drinks, etc) to insults and accusations.
Now let's say the bartender pulls out a shotgun and points it at me.
Now he's escalated from insults and accusations to a threat of death.
Do you see that my initial insult that "started" this fight is no longer relevant? There is absolutely no justification for pulling a gun on someone because they insulted you. It's such a different level that it has to be considered as a fresh incident.
And yes, the same goes with bare hands vs. guns and knives. The bar is busy. Someone tries to get by me and bumps into me, spilling my drink. I push them with my hands and make them stumble. That's assault (maybe). But that does not give them the right to cut me or shoot me and claim defense. Surely you see that? I thought this point was fairly obvious.
I don't believe that. If you start a verbal argument with someone, and then they try to kill you, you have every right to self defense even though you started it. There has to be recognition of the difference between levels of confrontation, otherwise the law in Arizona makes no sense.
I'm firmly pro-Zimmerman in this incident, and I would say Yes, there are circumstances under which Martin could have shot Zimmerman.
I could easily imagine this happening:
* Zimmerman approaches Martin, gun at his hip, asks what he's doing
* Martin, gun at his hap, responds "None of your business"
* Zimmerman pulls his gun and points it at Martin and repeats his question
* Martin shoots Zimmerman
I would support that 100%. It would be unfortunate, just as this case was, but I would not be calling for Maritn's arrest, or calling for it to be classified as a hate crime as many racists are calling for in this case.
That's all imagination though. It didn't happen. Zimmerman didn't pull his gun first -- otherwise he never would have gotten those wounds. So based on what seems to have happened, no, Martin would not be justified in shooting Zimmerman.
That may be useful to bring up in court, but I'd still like to know why did Zimmerman follow Trayvon into the dark alley with a gun.
I'm curious, are you just making that up? I haven't read anything about a "dark alley" in the middle of this gated community. Do you have no shame??
He followed a teenager around in a car and then followed him on foot into an alley.
Wow you're trying to make Zimmerman sound like a sex offender. What is wrong with you? You're obviously a racist.
Remember the feeling you have right now, next time a black guy is arrested and brought in under a pretense. After all, MAYBE he did something wrong, shouldn't we let the wheels of justice turn, even if some innocents get crushed under the millstone?
It's bullshit. Every level of the system should have ways for people to escape based on reasonable judgment calls. If the cop on the scene thinks everything is ok, it ends there. If the magistrate thinks everything is ok, it ends there. If the DA thinks everything is ok, it ends there. etc
Notice that at no point can the person escalate the issue past the other checks. The cop can't say "Eh I think you're guilty, no trial for you." That's the way the system is designed.
Again, I hope you remember your small-minded feeling of justice that you have right now next time an innocent person that you actually sympathetic to isn't given the benefit of the doubt.
Huh... what does paying inordinate attention mean? In the articles I read, Zimmerman claimed that Martin was stopping in front of houses and staring at them, that is inordinate attention in my book. Maybe Martin didn't recognize the house he was looking for since he didn't really live there, which is plausible.. but it's still inordinate attention for someone who is supposed to be there. Definitely worthy of some kind of intervention.
For the record, I have a little experience with being on Martin's side of this. One time I was sitting in my car in front of my parents' house on the street at night for a while. A neighbor who didn't recognize me came up to my car and asked who I was. I didn't fly into a rage and accuse them of racism, or get out and attack them.
Another time, I was visiting the horse barn in their neighborhood in the evening. Apparently someone saw a strange car parked there and called the cops. A sherriff came out and talked to me.
I don't see the big deal. People are cautious of strangers, and rightly so. If Martin had acted respectful and courteous, as a stranger in the neighborhood SHOULD act, none of this would have happened.
That's silly, what level of injury would you require before letting someone defend themselves with deadly force? If they are clearly and obviously injured even on a grainy surveillance video there's a good chance that they have severe head trauma and would be past the point of being ABLE to defend themselves.
There are no eyewitnesses that saw Zimmerman shoot Martin. But we accept Zimmerman's word that he shot Martin. The physical evidence is that Martin was shot.
On the same token, Zimmerman says Martin attacked him. There are no eyewitnesses, but again there is physical evidence.
So I'm assuming with your ultra high standards, you don't believe that Zimmerman shot Martin?