Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Katie

  1. If you think it’s acceptable to just casually use an offensive term for Asian people, you should probably educate yourself before getting into a conversation about race.
  2. The handful of random online dictionaries I have looked at define racism as including racial prejudice. I’m sorry you feel offended that I pointed out that someone’s argument about racism is contradicted by dictionaries.
  3. Regardless of field, focusing on the minuscule number of the most exceptional performers does not provide you with any insight into everyone else, which is what we’re dealing with here.
  4. If you think it’s a good idea to say “black athletes are more athletic [than] white athletes” when everyone seems to agree it’s not true, and when it meets the definition of racism, that’s up to you.
  5. It’s literally NOT true that every single black person is more athletic than every single white person. Making assumptions about random individuals based on an NFL statistic for a particular position seems pretty ridiculous.
  6. That’s the first of three definitions of racism. The third definition is simply racial prejudice or discrimination. So assuming an Asian man is better than you at math is racist. Then there is VakAttack’s excellent point based on the first definition. So you’re just wrong at two different levels.
  7. I will stop this back and forth as you are clearly out of your depth here, but I never said intent was irrelevant when it comes to the law. Further, with respect to the topic at hand, there is no reason that an insane person is incapable of intending to cause death. The insanity defense comes AFTER there is a legal determination that the elements of murder or manslaughter have been met.
  8. It depends on the state. If you identify the elements of a particular degree of murder and manslaughter in a particular state, then it becomes possible to discuss the differences. but if we’re going to get technical — and I was not speaking in legal technicalities earlier — then we should acknowledge at the outset that manslaughter is a type of homicide, just like murder is.
  9. When it comes to murder, intent plays a role in determining the type of murder involved (first degree, second degree, etc). I’m not as familiar with civil rights violations. But everywhere in the law, insanity is treated as a defense to legal liability, not as evidence that the underlying violation never happened.
  10. You start talking about the courts, but you don’t understand the concept of a defense to legal liability, so I suppose the clueless person is you.
  11. Affirmative action apparently negatively impacts Asians and whites on the basis of their race, which could very well meet the definition of racism, even though the harm is not the aim of the practice. It may depend on the precise definition of racism at issue. But — if it does meet the definition of racism — it’s a legal form of racism. Whether it’s a morally wrong form of racism is a political judgment. At this point, most people seem to think it is not morally wrong. I’d add that universities discriminate based on all sorts of factors. They seek geographic diversity, they want veterans, they want international students, they want men and women, they want athletes, they want children of donors, they want children from families with a history of attending the school, etc.
  12. Oh really? As far as I know, insanity can be a defense to civil rights violations and to murder. But all that means is that people determined to be insane will be treated differently than other civil rights violators and other murderers.
  13. Mental illness might affect how you deal with racism. But the bottom line is that you are dealing with racism.
  14. You are free to have your opinions. I just believe that a team that specifically bans black people is racist, and I think most people would agree with me. As for hiring someone and then discriminating against him or her on the basis of race, it happens all the time. There are even civil rights laws that address such situations.
  15. I think most people would call a team that bans black people racist. i also think any intelligent person would recognize that firing all black people from an organization simply for being black is discrimination on the basis of race.
  16. I always thought that John du Pont's ousting of black athletes from Team Foxcatcher was a horrible episode in wrestling history. According to Kevin Jackson -- who was kicked off Team Foxcatcher because of his race -- du Pont started getting rid of black things on his property -- such as black vehicles -- and then ousted black wrestlers. Yet, despite what I view as blatant racism, there was no immediate fallout. USA Wrestling didn't investigate the charge of racial discrimination because USA Wrestling officials felt that pursuing the complaint could put the affected athletes in jeopardy. As Chris Campbell explained it, du Pont was influential with UWW (then called FILA), so the thinking was that an investigation could lead to referees making calls against the athletes who sparked the investigation. I firmly believe USA Wrestling did the best they could under the circumstances. But even so, it's incredible to think about what the reality was at the time. [Edit: Made some changes to this post after reading responses to it, and after learning of a 1997 lawsuit against du Pont.]
  17. Let's assume that in years past NFL teams did not sign Colin Kapernick because his political beliefs would have negatively impacted their bottom line. As far as I know, there was nothing illegal about that. Further, I don't think there was anything wrong with that. Kapernick knew that voicing an unpopular opinion would have consequences. That's the way things have always been in this country, and -- in my opinion -- the way things should be. What's the alternative? Having the government require people to spend their money in ways they don't want to?
  18. It may be useful to clear thinking and productive discussion to stick to your original thought, which is that a company’s branding should not affect whether people purchase its product. This may not be the best website for the larger social and political themes.
  19. Here is one of the few who understand the principles of our capitalist democracy.
  20. I assume you will talk to those two brothers into subscribing to Flo once again. As you say, the branding you attribute to a company should not determine whether you purchase that company's product.
  21. Katie

    Ufc 249

    My opinion is that we should listen to experts. Not sure why that bothers you.
  22. Katie

    Ufc 249

    Hardly surprising you have no expertise in constitutional law.
  23. Katie

    Ufc 249

    I'm sure you're aware that Wikipedia is not authoritative, and that you only quoted half the sentence from Wikipedia at any rate. Hopefully you'll look further into the police power if you're genuinely interested. I'm also sure you're aware that even under normal conditions there is no absolute right to assemble. For instance, I cannot lawfully assemble a group of 50 people on your front yard for a Cinco de Mayo party without your permission.
  24. Katie

    Ufc 249

    In case you don't know much about constitutional law, here is a basic concept for you to consider: police power.
  25. Katie

    Ufc 249

    I guess the concept of liability is beyond you. I’ll leave you to your conspiracy theories now. Happy Mother’s Day.
  • Create New...