Looting in Missouri after cops shoot 18 year old (1 Viewer)

[St. Louis Bob]

Following #ferguson on twitter, some people are justifying it because the stores being looted never give anything back to the community and that's what insurance is for.

They protested peacefully for 3 hours, but swat teams were brought in. That angered them and got the looting started.

A police officers house was reported to be burned down, so that one is easier to understand.

lol...what a bunch of idiots; they give back to the community just by virtue of being there. They provide jobs for people who live in the community and access to buy stuff. All stuff that people take for granted.

There have been protests because some areas of the city don't have grocery stores, gas stations etc. Actual scary parts of the city, not like Ferguson. People suck.

Well, congrats, now there will be even less options for these poor, poor people. I know some people are like...whatever, insurance will pay for it....but anyone with even half a brain knows that when a claim is put in, the rates skyrocket. So I guess we will see if it is worth it to pull this kind of crap.

It will be interesting to see if the people arrested actually live in Ferguson. I'm guessing most don't.

 

[St. Louis Bob]

JFC

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Here is another good article on the psychology of looting, again using the UK riots:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/aug/09/uk-riots-psychology-of-looting

At the other end of the authoritarian-liberal spectrum, you have Camila Batmanghelidjh's idea, movingly expressed in the Independent, that this is a natural human response to the brutality of poverty: "Walk on the estate stairwells with your baby in a buggy manoeuvring past the condoms, the needles, into the lift where the best outcome is that you will survive the urine stench and the worst is that you will be raped . . . It's not one occasional attack on dignity, it's a repeated humiliation, being continuously dispossessed in a society rich with possession. Young, intelligent citizens of the ghetto seek an explanation for why they are at the receiving end of bleak Britain, condemned to a darkness where their humanity is not even valued enough to be helped."

Between these poles is a more pragmatic reading: this is what happens when people don't have anything, when they have their noses constantly rubbed in stuff they can't afford, and they have no reason ever to believe that they will be able to afford it. Hiller takes up this idea: "Consumer society relies on your ability to participate in it. So what we recognise as a consumer now was born out of shorter hours, higher wages and the availability of credit. If you're dealing with a lot of people who don't have the last two, that contract doesn't work. They seem to be targeting the stores selling goods they would normally consume. So perhaps they're rebelling against the system that denies its bounty to them because they can't afford it."

A much simpler explanation is that people like getting stuff for free, and a riot provides a good opportunity to steal with impunity.

The article seems to pretty much say the same thing, but in a more nuanced manner.

The bottom line is people want things they can't afford so they take them when the opportunity presents itself.

But tim told me I was wrong. Now I don't know what to believe.

 

[Keerock]

Enter Rev Al Sharton in 3 . 2. silent 1 .

@TheRevAl: I am in touch w/ activists in St. Louis about the police killing a 17 year old unarmed youth in Ferguson . From Staten Island to Ferguson.

Now pretend Brown was White.

I don't think this would be news worthy

I was mostly referring to Sharpton's involvement. If Brown were White, Sharpton would not be injecting himself into the situation.

 

[avoiding injuries]

The FBI is taking over the investigation.

 

[Keerock]

The FBI is taking over the investigation.

No need... Sharpton's got it covered.

 

[timschochet]

Here is another good article on the psychology of looting, again using the UK riots:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/aug/09/uk-riots-psychology-of-looting

At the other end of the authoritarian-liberal spectrum, you have Camila Batmanghelidjh's idea, movingly expressed in the Independent, that this is a natural human response to the brutality of poverty: "Walk on the estate stairwells with your baby in a buggy manoeuvring past the condoms, the needles, into the lift where the best outcome is that you will survive the urine stench and the worst is that you will be raped . . . It's not one occasional attack on dignity, it's a repeated humiliation, being continuously dispossessed in a society rich with possession. Young, intelligent citizens of the ghetto seek an explanation for why they are at the receiving end of bleak Britain, condemned to a darkness where their humanity is not even valued enough to be helped."

Between these poles is a more pragmatic reading: this is what happens when people don't have anything, when they have their noses constantly rubbed in stuff they can't afford, and they have no reason ever to believe that they will be able to afford it. Hiller takes up this idea: "Consumer society relies on your ability to participate in it. So what we recognise as a consumer now was born out of shorter hours, higher wages and the availability of credit. If you're dealing with a lot of people who don't have the last two, that contract doesn't work. They seem to be targeting the stores selling goods they would normally consume. So perhaps they're rebelling against the system that denies its bounty to them because they can't afford it."

A much simpler explanation is that people like getting stuff for free, and a riot provides a good opportunity to steal with impunity.

The article seems to pretty much say the same thing, but in a more nuanced manner.

The bottom line is people want things they can't afford so they take them when the opportunity presents itself.

But tim told me I was wrong. Now I don't know what to believe.

I think you are wrong, and I don't think jonessed is interpreting the article correctly. For one thing, the part I quoted offers two somewhat conflicting POVs. But what I got out of it is that even when the opportunity presents itself, most people won't loot. I doubt anyone in the middle class usually loots, and that includes almost everyone reading this forum. The sort of people who loot have other factors involved that cause them to loot, poverty being one of the biggest. (But even then, it's important to remember that most people in poverty still won't loot- so we're talking about a minority of a minority.)

 

[johnnycakes]

The FBI is taking over the investigation.

No need... Sharpton's got it covered.

I remember some years ago, Polar bears in the Pittsburgh zoo received a $14 million domain renovation featuring a plush waterfall and running stream. Then Al Sharpton wanted to know what the black bears got.

 

[jonessed]

Here is another good article on the psychology of looting, again using the UK riots:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/aug/09/uk-riots-psychology-of-looting

At the other end of the authoritarian-liberal spectrum, you have Camila Batmanghelidjh's idea, movingly expressed in the Independent, that this is a natural human response to the brutality of poverty: "Walk on the estate stairwells with your baby in a buggy manoeuvring past the condoms, the needles, into the lift where the best outcome is that you will survive the urine stench and the worst is that you will be raped . . . It's not one occasional attack on dignity, it's a repeated humiliation, being continuously dispossessed in a society rich with possession. Young, intelligent citizens of the ghetto seek an explanation for why they are at the receiving end of bleak Britain, condemned to a darkness where their humanity is not even valued enough to be helped."

Between these poles is a more pragmatic reading: this is what happens when people don't have anything, when they have their noses constantly rubbed in stuff they can't afford, and they have no reason ever to believe that they will be able to afford it. Hiller takes up this idea: "Consumer society relies on your ability to participate in it. So what we recognise as a consumer now was born out of shorter hours, higher wages and the availability of credit. If you're dealing with a lot of people who don't have the last two, that contract doesn't work. They seem to be targeting the stores selling goods they would normally consume. So perhaps they're rebelling against the system that denies its bounty to them because they can't afford it."

A much simpler explanation is that people like getting stuff for free, and a riot provides a good opportunity to steal with impunity.

The article seems to pretty much say the same thing, but in a more nuanced manner.The bottom line is people want things they can't afford so they take them when the opportunity presents itself.

But tim told me I was wrong. Now I don't know what to believe.

Tim reads more than I think he comprehends (go figure). The portion of the article Tim is focusing on is simply wrapping the actions in a social justice argument. I think the psychology is important to understand, but ultimately it's still people taking the opportunity to steal.

 

[Ditka Butkus]

I am appalled that the police shot this young man and oh by the way I can use a free TV

 

[lod01]

I am appalled that the police shot this young man and oh by the way I can use a free TV

......or a shotgun and a bicycle so I can go rob and kill others.

 

[Al O'Pecia]

I remember some years ago, Polar bears in the Pittsburgh zoo received a $14 million domain renovation featuring a plush waterfall and running stream. Then Al Sharpton wanted to know what the black bears got.

timber lands

 

[rct]

Enter Rev Al Sharton in 3 . 2. silent 1 .

@TheRevAl: I am in touch w/ activists in St. Louis about the police killing a 17 year old unarmed youth in Ferguson . From Staten Island to Ferguson.

Now pretend Brown was White.

I don't think this would be news worthy

I was mostly referring to Sharpton's involvement. If Brown were White, Sharpton would not be injecting himself into the situation.

So? Is your point that you think that Sharpton should involve himself in every single police shooting in the nation of someone unarmed, no matter what the race? Otherwise he is being inconsistent and should stay silent?

I have never understood the logic that unless one speaks out on every perceived injustice, then they don't have a right speak out at all on something directly impacting their minority community.

 

[VA703]

al sharton is a joke why is he being defended

 

[Ghost Rider]

Looting is when anger meets opportunity.

To me, people who riot and loot are basically people looking to for any excuse to act like that, kind of like when riots happen after a city wins a sports championship.

 

[Gary Coal Man]

I have never understood the logic that unless one speaks out on every perceived injustice, then they don't have a right speak out at all on something directly impacting their minority community.

Agreed in principle, but why did you limit the right to speak out to only minority communities?

 

[meatwad1]

And people wonder why stereotypes exist? lol.......

You mean like conservatives being bigots?

No liberal people stereotype?

 

[rct]

I have never understood the logic that unless one speaks out on every perceived injustice, then they don't have a right speak out at all on something directly impacting their minority community.

Agreed in principle, but why did you limit the right to speak out to only minority communities?

There are plenty of non-minorities who can step up to the plate and they do so all the time (example the white homeless guy shot by police in Huntington Beach a year or two ago). And there are not enough hours in a day, week or year to address every single injustice in the world. If you are member of a minority and don't step forward regarding something that impacts your minority, then who will? Rightly or wrongly, would Trevon Martin gotten any attention if was not for people like Sharpton in the black community?

 

[meatwad1]

So? Is your point that you think that Sharpton should involve himself in every single police shooting in the nation of someone unarmed, no matter what the race? Otherwise he is being inconsistent and should stay silent?

I have never understood the logic that unless one speaks out on every perceived injustice, then they don't have a right speak out at all on something directly impacting their minority community.

How is he part of the community? Just because he is black? Who is stereotyping now?

Using your logic, I have a special kinship with any white person on the face of the planet....can't wait to cross over into Canada and start my new life as a resident of Vancouver because I am part of their community.

 

[ffldrew]

So? Is your point that you think that Sharpton should involve himself in every single police shooting in the nation of someone unarmed, no matter what the race? Otherwise he is being inconsistent and should stay silent?

I have never understood the logic that unless one speaks out on every perceived injustice, then they don't have a right speak out at all on something directly impacting their minority community.

How is he part of the community? Just because he is black? Who is stereotyping now?

Using your logic, I have a special kinship with any white person on the face of the planet....can't wait to cross over into Canada and start my new life as a resident of Vancouver because I am part of their community.

Not sure Vancouver is your best example of a white persons enclave.

 

[rct]

So? Is your point that you think that Sharpton should involve himself in every single police shooting in the nation of someone unarmed, no matter what the race? Otherwise he is being inconsistent and should stay silent?

I have never understood the logic that unless one speaks out on every perceived injustice, then they don't have a right speak out at all on something directly impacting their minority community.

How is he part of the community? Just because he is black? Who is stereotyping now?

Using your logic, I have a special kinship with any white person on the face of the planet....can't wait to cross over into Canada and start my new life as a resident of Vancouver because I am part of their community.

The above paragraph makes no sense, but carry on.

 

[meatwad1]

So? Is your point that you think that Sharpton should involve himself in every single police shooting in the nation of someone unarmed, no matter what the race? Otherwise he is being inconsistent and should stay silent?

I have never understood the logic that unless one speaks out on every perceived injustice, then they don't have a right speak out at all on something directly impacting their minority community.

How is he part of the community? Just because he is black? Who is stereotyping now?

Using your logic, I have a special kinship with any white person on the face of the planet....can't wait to cross over into Canada and start my new life as a resident of Vancouver because I am part of their community.

Not sure Vancouver is your best example of a white persons enclave.

The majority of people in Vancouver are not white? I know it is a pretty cosmopolitan city, I think I'll have to check on that.

 

[Jackstraw]

This is one of the reasons why I selected "Humans evolved from Apes"

Dehumanization is a psychological process whereby opponents view each other as less than human and thus not deserving of moral consideration. Jews in the eyes of Nazis and Tutsis in the eyes of Hutus (in the Rwandan genocide) are but two examples. Protracted conflict strains relationships and makes it difficult for parties to recognize that they are part of a shared human community. Such conditions often lead to feelings of intense hatred and alienation among conflicting parties. The more severe the conflict, the more the psychological distance between groups will widen. Eventually, this can result in moral exclusion. Those excluded are typically viewed as inferior, evil, or criminal.[1]

We typically think that all people have some basic human rights that should not be violated. Innocent people should not be murdered, raped, or tortured. Rather, international law suggests that they should be treated justly and fairly, with dignity and respect. They deserve to have their basic needs met, and to have some freedom to make autonomous decisions. In times of war, parties must take care to protect the lives of innocent civilians on the opposing side. Even those guilty of breaking the law should receive a fair trial, and should not be subject to any sort of cruel or unusual punishment.

However, for individuals viewed as outside the scope of morality and justice, "the concepts of deserving basic needs and fair treatment do not apply and can seem irrelevant."[2] Any harm that befalls such individuals seems warranted, and perhaps even morally justified. Those excluded from the scope of morality are typically perceived as psychologically distant, expendable, and deserving of treatment that would not be acceptable for those included in one's moral community. Common criteria for exclusion include ideology, skin color, and cognitive capacity. We typically dehumanize those whom we perceive as a threat to our well-being or values.[3]

Psychologically, it is necessary to categorize one's enemy as sub-human in order to legitimize increased violence or justify the violation of basic human rights. Moral exclusion reduces restraints against harming or exploiting certain groups of people. In severe cases, dehumanization makes the violation of generally accepted norms of behavior regarding one's fellow man seem reasonable, or even necessary.

 

[meatwad1]

So? Is your point that you think that Sharpton should involve himself in every single police shooting in the nation of someone unarmed, no matter what the race? Otherwise he is being inconsistent and should stay silent?

I have never understood the logic that unless one speaks out on every perceived injustice, then they don't have a right speak out at all on something directly impacting their minority community.

How is he part of the community? Just because he is black? Who is stereotyping now?

Using your logic, I have a special kinship with any white person on the face of the planet....can't wait to cross over into Canada and start my new life as a resident of Vancouver because I am part of their community.

The above paragraph makes no sense, but carry on.

How so?

 

[Quez]

Is rioting still going on or was it an isolated incident that surrounded the vigil?

Any other vigils planned?

 

[jon_mx]

This is one of the reasons why I selected "Humans evolved from Apes"

Dehumanization is a psychological process whereby opponents view each other as less than human and thus not deserving of moral consideration. Jews in the eyes of Nazis and Tutsis in the eyes of Hutus (in the Rwandan genocide) are but two examples. Protracted conflict strains relationships and makes it difficult for parties to recognize that they are part of a shared human community. Such conditions often lead to feelings of intense hatred and alienation among conflicting parties. The more severe the conflict, the more the psychological distance between groups will widen. Eventually, this can result in moral exclusion. Those excluded are typically viewed as inferior, evil, or criminal.[1]

We typically think that all people have some basic human rights that should not be violated. Innocent people should not be murdered, raped, or tortured. Rather, international law suggests that they should be treated justly and fairly, with dignity and respect. They deserve to have their basic needs met, and to have some freedom to make autonomous decisions. In times of war, parties must take care to protect the lives of innocent civilians on the opposing side. Even those guilty of breaking the law should receive a fair trial, and should not be subject to any sort of cruel or unusual punishment.

However, for individuals viewed as outside the scope of morality and justice, "the concepts of deserving basic needs and fair treatment do not apply and can seem irrelevant."[2] Any harm that befalls such individuals seems warranted, and perhaps even morally justified. Those excluded from the scope of morality are typically perceived as psychologically distant, expendable, and deserving of treatment that would not be acceptable for those included in one's moral community. Common criteria for exclusion include ideology, skin color, and cognitive capacity. We typically dehumanize those whom we perceive as a threat to our well-being or values.[3]

Psychologically, it is necessary to categorize one's enemy as sub-human in order to legitimize increased violence or justify the violation of basic human rights. Moral exclusion reduces restraints against harming or exploiting certain groups of people. In severe cases, dehumanization makes the violation of generally accepted norms of behavior regarding one's fellow man seem reasonable, or even necessary.

And how do you define plagiarism?

 

[meatwad1]

So? Is your point that you think that Sharpton should involve himself in every single police shooting in the nation of someone unarmed, no matter what the race? Otherwise he is being inconsistent and should stay silent?

I have never understood the logic that unless one speaks out on every perceived injustice, then they don't have a right speak out at all on something directly impacting their minority community.

How is he part of the community? Just because he is black? Who is stereotyping now?

Using your logic, I have a special kinship with any white person on the face of the planet....can't wait to cross over into Canada and start my new life as a resident of Vancouver because I am part of their community.

Not sure Vancouver is your best example of a white persons enclave.

The majority of people in Vancouver are not white? I know it is a pretty cosmopolitan city, I think I'll have to check on that.

Just checked it. The majority of people in that city are indeed white. Since I am white I am in!

 

[Gary Coal Man]

I have never understood the logic that unless one speaks out on every perceived injustice, then they don't have a right speak out at all on something directly impacting their minority community.

Agreed in principle, but why did you limit the right to speak out to only minority communities?

There are plenty of non-minorities who can step up to the plate and they do so all the time (example the white homeless guy shot by police in Huntington Beach a year or two ago). And there are not enough hours in a day, week or year to address every single injustice in the world. If you are member of a minority and don't step forward regarding something that impacts your minority, then who will? Rightly or wrongly, would Trevon Martin gotten any attention if was not for people like Sharpton in the black community?

I'm not sure if you understood my question. In your original post you suggested that a person shouldn't lose their credibility or their right to speak out on issues affecting their community just because they aren't as vocal about issues involving other communities. I agree with that. At the end of your post, however, you seem to limit the right to speak primarily on issues affecting your community only to minority communities. Why?

 

[rct]

So? Is your point that you think that Sharpton should involve himself in every single police shooting in the nation of someone unarmed, no matter what the race? Otherwise he is being inconsistent and should stay silent?

I have never understood the logic that unless one speaks out on every perceived injustice, then they don't have a right speak out at all on something directly impacting their minority community.

How is he part of the community? Just because he is black? Who is stereotyping now?

Using your logic, I have a special kinship with any white person on the face of the planet....can't wait to cross over into Canada and start my new life as a resident of Vancouver because I am part of their community.

The above paragraph makes no sense, but carry on.

How so?

You made a straw man argument followed by a really poor analogy.

 

[Captain Quinoa]

I have never understood the logic that unless one speaks out on every perceived injustice, then they don't have a right speak out at all on something directly impacting their minority community.

Agreed in principle, but why did you limit the right to speak out to only minority communities?

There are plenty of non-minorities who can step up to the plate and they do so all the time (example the white homeless guy shot by police in Huntington Beach a year or two ago). And there are not enough hours in a day, week or year to address every single injustice in the world. If you are member of a minority and don't step forward regarding something that impacts your minority, then who will? Rightly or wrongly, would Trevon Martin gotten any attention if was not for people like Sharpton in the black community?

Yes thank goodness for that :rolypolyeyes:

 

[meatwad1]

This is one of the reasons why I selected "Humans evolved from Apes"

Dehumanization is a psychological process whereby opponents view each other as less than human and thus not deserving of moral consideration. Jews in the eyes of Nazis and Tutsis in the eyes of Hutus (in the Rwandan genocide) are but two examples. Protracted conflict strains relationships and makes it difficult for parties to recognize that they are part of a shared human community. Such conditions often lead to feelings of intense hatred and alienation among conflicting parties. The more severe the conflict, the more the psychological distance between groups will widen. Eventually, this can result in moral exclusion. Those excluded are typically viewed as inferior, evil, or criminal.[1]

We typically think that all people have some basic human rights that should not be violated. Innocent people should not be murdered, raped, or tortured. Rather, international law suggests that they should be treated justly and fairly, with dignity and respect. They deserve to have their basic needs met, and to have some freedom to make autonomous decisions. In times of war, parties must take care to protect the lives of innocent civilians on the opposing side. Even those guilty of breaking the law should receive a fair trial, and should not be subject to any sort of cruel or unusual punishment.

However, for individuals viewed as outside the scope of morality and justice, "the concepts of deserving basic needs and fair treatment do not apply and can seem irrelevant."[2] Any harm that befalls such individuals seems warranted, and perhaps even morally justified. Those excluded from the scope of morality are typically perceived as psychologically distant, expendable, and deserving of treatment that would not be acceptable for those included in one's moral community. Common criteria for exclusion include ideology, skin color, and cognitive capacity. We typically dehumanize those whom we perceive as a threat to our well-being or values.[3]

Psychologically, it is necessary to categorize one's enemy as sub-human in order to legitimize increased violence or justify the violation of basic human rights. Moral exclusion reduces restraints against harming or exploiting certain groups of people. In severe cases, dehumanization makes the violation of generally accepted norms of behavior regarding one's fellow man seem reasonable, or even necessary.

Dude...it is pretty disingenuous and intellectually lazy to post something like that without crediting the source. I understand that you want to put a good face on your argument, but don't pass something like that off as your own.

For future reference, Tim always does a good job of making sure it is clear who the source of an argument is, so maybe study some of his posts.

 

[kface]

So? Is your point that you think that Sharpton should involve himself in every single police shooting in the nation of someone unarmed, no matter what the race? Otherwise he is being inconsistent and should stay silent?

I have never understood the logic that unless one speaks out on every perceived injustice, then they don't have a right speak out at all on something directly impacting their minority community.

How is he part of the community? Just because he is black? Who is stereotyping now?

Using your logic, I have a special kinship with any white person on the face of the planet....can't wait to cross over into Canada and start my new life as a resident of Vancouver because I am part of their community.

Not sure Vancouver is your best example of a white persons enclave.

The majority of people in Vancouver are not white? I know it is a pretty cosmopolitan city, I think I'll have to check on that.

Just checked it. The majority of people in that city are indeed white. Since I am white I am in!

I don't know what you checked but the majority of the people in that City are not white

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Vancouver

As someone that lived there a long time it's even more prevalent on the ground.

 

[timschochet]

I have never understood the logic that unless one speaks out on every perceived injustice, then they don't have a right speak out at all on something directly impacting their minority community.

Agreed in principle, but why did you limit the right to speak out to only minority communities?

There are plenty of non-minorities who can step up to the plate and they do so all the time (example the white homeless guy shot by police in Huntington Beach a year or two ago). And there are not enough hours in a day, week or year to address every single injustice in the world. If you are member of a minority and don't step forward regarding something that impacts your minority, then who will? Rightly or wrongly, would Trevon Martin gotten any attention if was not for people like Sharpton in the black community?

Yeah, I think he probably would have. Sharpton didn't create that incident; he took advantage of it. In his entire career, the only time I'm aware of that Sharpton was actually primarily responsible for publicizing something was Tawana Brawley, and that turned out to be fiction.

 

[Jackstraw]

This is one of the reasons why I selected "Humans evolved from Apes"

Dehumanization is a psychological process whereby opponents view each other as less than human and thus not deserving of moral consideration. Jews in the eyes of Nazis and Tutsis in the eyes of Hutus (in the Rwandan genocide) are but two examples. Protracted conflict strains relationships and makes it difficult for parties to recognize that they are part of a shared human community. Such conditions often lead to feelings of intense hatred and alienation among conflicting parties. The more severe the conflict, the more the psychological distance between groups will widen. Eventually, this can result in moral exclusion. Those excluded are typically viewed as inferior, evil, or criminal.[1]

We typically think that all people have some basic human rights that should not be violated. Innocent people should not be murdered, raped, or tortured. Rather, international law suggests that they should be treated justly and fairly, with dignity and respect. They deserve to have their basic needs met, and to have some freedom to make autonomous decisions. In times of war, parties must take care to protect the lives of innocent civilians on the opposing side. Even those guilty of breaking the law should receive a fair trial, and should not be subject to any sort of cruel or unusual punishment.

However, for individuals viewed as outside the scope of morality and justice, "the concepts of deserving basic needs and fair treatment do not apply and can seem irrelevant."[2] Any harm that befalls such individuals seems warranted, and perhaps even morally justified. Those excluded from the scope of morality are typically perceived as psychologically distant, expendable, and deserving of treatment that would not be acceptable for those included in one's moral community. Common criteria for exclusion include ideology, skin color, and cognitive capacity. We typically dehumanize those whom we perceive as a threat to our well-being or values.[3]

Psychologically, it is necessary to categorize one's enemy as sub-human in order to legitimize increased violence or justify the violation of basic human rights. Moral exclusion reduces restraints against harming or exploiting certain groups of people. In severe cases, dehumanization makes the violation of generally accepted norms of behavior regarding one's fellow man seem reasonable, or even necessary.

And how do you define plagiarism?

You really thought I intended that to look whooped ad hoc? My sincere apologies. However if I did I would have taken time to remove the footnote marks.

 

[rct]

I have never understood the logic that unless one speaks out on every perceived injustice, then they don't have a right speak out at all on something directly impacting their minority community.

Agreed in principle, but why did you limit the right to speak out to only minority communities?

There are plenty of non-minorities who can step up to the plate and they do so all the time (example the white homeless guy shot by police in Huntington Beach a year or two ago). And there are not enough hours in a day, week or year to address every single injustice in the world. If you are member of a minority and don't step forward regarding something that impacts your minority, then who will? Rightly or wrongly, would Trevon Martin gotten any attention if was not for people like Sharpton in the black community?

I'm not sure if you understood my question. In your original post you suggested that a person shouldn't lose their credibility or their right to speak out on issues affecting their community just because they aren't as vocal about issues involving other communities. I agree with that. At the end of your post, however, you seem to limit the right to speak primarily on issues affecting your community only to minority communities. Why?

No, I didn't limit it only to minority communities. Only the members of those communities are the most likely to step forward since it directly impacts them and it is unreasonable that they should also be required to also speak out on all other issues that don't directly impact them (they can if they want, but time constraints would make this prohibitive).

 

[meatwad1]

So? Is your point that you think that Sharpton should involve himself in every single police shooting in the nation of someone unarmed, no matter what the race? Otherwise he is being inconsistent and should stay silent?

I have never understood the logic that unless one speaks out on every perceived injustice, then they don't have a right speak out at all on something directly impacting their minority community.

How is he part of the community? Just because he is black? Who is stereotyping now?

Using your logic, I have a special kinship with any white person on the face of the planet....can't wait to cross over into Canada and start my new life as a resident of Vancouver because I am part of their community.

The above paragraph makes no sense, but carry on.

How so?

You made a straw man argument followed by a really poor analogy.

Why is the analogy poor? You are claiming that all blacks have a special right to speak out and protest when something bad happens to one of them anywhere in any community in the country. Are they really all 'brothers'? What makes them that? Their skin color? Do they all come from the same country? Or even the same continent? Is a black guy from Somalia the same as one from Uganda? What about a Haitian black dude, does he share a special bond with a black descended from Nigeria? My analogy is exactly the same as yours. I am going to move to a new country with all of my white brothers. After all, we are all the same, right? We are all white, just like Al Sharpton can come in and speak for all of the blacks, because they are all the same right. That is what I am hearing from you.

 

[timschochet]

I really dislike Al Sharpton. To me, he is somebody who takes advantage of anger and hatred in order to promote himself. Outside of really awful murderers, rapists, molesters and other criminals, I can't think of a type lower or someone more dangerous to society. The fact that, in many specific cases, I happen to agree with the "side" that he's on makes no difference whatsoever. Because it doesn't matter what side he's on; his presence creates bad feelings.

Some people here accuse me of being an MSNBC fan, and I used to be, but in truth I stopped watching MSNBC when they started featuring Sharpton on a regular basis.

 

[kface]

So? Is your point that you think that Sharpton should involve himself in every single police shooting in the nation of someone unarmed, no matter what the race? Otherwise he is being inconsistent and should stay silent?

I have never understood the logic that unless one speaks out on every perceived injustice, then they don't have a right speak out at all on something directly impacting their minority community.

How is he part of the community? Just because he is black? Who is stereotyping now?

Using your logic, I have a special kinship with any white person on the face of the planet....can't wait to cross over into Canada and start my new life as a resident of Vancouver because I am part of their community.

The above paragraph makes no sense, but carry on.

How so?

You made a straw man argument followed by a really poor analogy.

Why is the analogy poor? You are claiming that all blacks have a special right to speak out and protest when something bad happens to one of them anywhere in any community in the country. Are they really all 'brothers'? What makes them that? Their skin color? Do they all come from the same country? Or even the same continent? Is a black guy from Somalia the same as one from Uganda? What about a Haitian black dude, does he share a special bond with a black descended from Nigeria? My analogy is exactly the same as yours. I am going to move to a new country with all of my white brothers. After all, we are all the same, right? We are all white, just like Al Sharpton can come in and speak for all of the blacks, because they are all the same right. That is what I am hearing from you.

I think if you want to do the correct analogy you have to move to a country where whites are in the significant minority and up to 30years ago have very little rights and were treated sub-human. Then I think you are looking at the same type of situation. Nobody claims they are all the "same" (whatever that means) but it shouldn't be surprising when a proportion of the population reacts angrily when they feel that they are treated in a harmful way.

 

[meatwad1]

So? Is your point that you think that Sharpton should involve himself in every single police shooting in the nation of someone unarmed, no matter what the race? Otherwise he is being inconsistent and should stay silent?

I have never understood the logic that unless one speaks out on every perceived injustice, then they don't have a right speak out at all on something directly impacting their minority community.

How is he part of the community? Just because he is black? Who is stereotyping now?

Using your logic, I have a special kinship with any white person on the face of the planet....can't wait to cross over into Canada and start my new life as a resident of Vancouver because I am part of their community.

Not sure Vancouver is your best example of a white persons enclave.

The majority of people in Vancouver are not white? I know it is a pretty cosmopolitan city, I think I'll have to check on that.

Just checked it. The majority of people in that city are indeed white. Since I am white I am in!

I don't know what you checked but the majority of the people in that City are not white

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Vancouver

As someone that lived there a long time it's even more prevalent on the ground.

35% British Isle origins is not white? 6% French? 13% Western European? 11% Eastern European? 15% Other North American (Canada and America)?

That is 80% of the population, and while I realize that all of those subsets are not white. most of them are. I am sure when you lived there, you might have lived in an area where there were there were many blacks or Asians, but something has to make up the majority and Wikipedia pretty clearly states that it is white.

Maybe we are arguing different points here...I am going off of pure skin color because that is what liberals like to simplify the issue to.

 

[Koya]

Enter Rev Al Sharton in 3 . 2. silent 1 .

Is there any $ to be made on this one?

he might need a new Magnavox tv so the looting may draw him in

I prefer magnetbox, or sorny.

 

[kface]

I really dislike Al Sharpton. To me, he is somebody who takes advantage of anger and hatred in order to promote himself. Outside of really awful murderers, rapists, molesters and other criminals, I can't think of a type lower or someone more dangerous to society. The fact that, in many specific cases, I happen to agree with the "side" that he's on makes no difference whatsoever. Because it doesn't matter what side he's on; his presence creates bad feelings.

Some people here accuse me of being an MSNBC fan, and I used to be, but in truth I stopped watching MSNBC when they started featuring Sharpton on a regular basis.

What you described is pretty much most politicians, tv hosts, entertainers, business people etc...he is no different than anyone else looking for prestige and the almighty $$$. I don't like him either but I don't single him out...I just don't like people like that and unfortunately it's a good portion of our society.

 

[meatwad1]

I really dislike Al Sharpton. To me, he is somebody who takes advantage of anger and hatred in order to promote himself. Outside of really awful murderers, rapists, molesters and other criminals, I can't think of a type lower or someone more dangerous to society. The fact that, in many specific cases, I happen to agree with the "side" that he's on makes no difference whatsoever. Because it doesn't matter what side he's on; his presence creates bad feelings.

Some people here accuse me of being an MSNBC fan, and I used to be, but in truth I stopped watching MSNBC when they started featuring Sharpton on a regular basis.

You actually just described President Obama. I am eagerly awaiting his take on this travesty of justice.

 

[kface]

So? Is your point that you think that Sharpton should involve himself in every single police shooting in the nation of someone unarmed, no matter what the race? Otherwise he is being inconsistent and should stay silent?

I have never understood the logic that unless one speaks out on every perceived injustice, then they don't have a right speak out at all on something directly impacting their minority community.

How is he part of the community? Just because he is black? Who is stereotyping now?

Using your logic, I have a special kinship with any white person on the face of the planet....can't wait to cross over into Canada and start my new life as a resident of Vancouver because I am part of their community.

Not sure Vancouver is your best example of a white persons enclave.

The majority of people in Vancouver are not white? I know it is a pretty cosmopolitan city, I think I'll have to check on that.

Just checked it. The majority of people in that city are indeed white. Since I am white I am in!

I don't know what you checked but the majority of the people in that City are not white

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Vancouver

As someone that lived there a long time it's even more prevalent on the ground.

35% British Isle origins is not white? 6% French? 13% Western European? 11% Eastern European? 15% Other North American (Canada and America)?

That is 80% of the population, and while I realize that all of those subsets are not white. most of them are. I am sure when you lived there, you might of lived in an area where there were there were many blacks or Asians, but something has to make up the majority and Wikipedia pretty clearly states that it is white.

Maybe we are arguing different points here...I am going off of pure skin color because that is what liberals like to simplify the issue to.

Scroll down a little farther - 47% white, 51% visible minority

 

[Yenrub]

Per Sharpton the victim’s grandfather in this case reached out to Sharpton

 

[kface]

I really dislike Al Sharpton. To me, he is somebody who takes advantage of anger and hatred in order to promote himself. Outside of really awful murderers, rapists, molesters and other criminals, I can't think of a type lower or someone more dangerous to society. The fact that, in many specific cases, I happen to agree with the "side" that he's on makes no difference whatsoever. Because it doesn't matter what side he's on; his presence creates bad feelings.

Some people here accuse me of being an MSNBC fan, and I used to be, but in truth I stopped watching MSNBC when they started featuring Sharpton on a regular basis.

You actually just described President Obama. I am eagerly awaiting his take on this travesty of justice.

It could describe any number of people...

 

[timschochet]

I really dislike Al Sharpton. To me, he is somebody who takes advantage of anger and hatred in order to promote himself. Outside of really awful murderers, rapists, molesters and other criminals, I can't think of a type lower or someone more dangerous to society. The fact that, in many specific cases, I happen to agree with the "side" that he's on makes no difference whatsoever. Because it doesn't matter what side he's on; his presence creates bad feelings.

Some people here accuse me of being an MSNBC fan, and I used to be, but in truth I stopped watching MSNBC when they started featuring Sharpton on a regular basis.

What you described is pretty much most politicians, tv hosts, entertainers, business people etc...he is no different than anyone else looking for prestige and the almighty $$$. I don't like him either but I don't single him out...I just don't like people like that and unfortunately it's a good portion of our society.

Strongly disagree. Sharpton is far far worse than most politicians, tv hosts, entertainers, etc. There are always people looking to promote themselves. And there are always people eager to take advantage of divisiviness within our society.

Sharpton is both of these things, but what makes him dangerous (and disgusting, IMO) is that he seeks to increase that divisinessness and make it worse.

 

[timschochet]

I really dislike Al Sharpton. To me, he is somebody who takes advantage of anger and hatred in order to promote himself. Outside of really awful murderers, rapists, molesters and other criminals, I can't think of a type lower or someone more dangerous to society. The fact that, in many specific cases, I happen to agree with the "side" that he's on makes no difference whatsoever. Because it doesn't matter what side he's on; his presence creates bad feelings.

Some people here accuse me of being an MSNBC fan, and I used to be, but in truth I stopped watching MSNBC when they started featuring Sharpton on a regular basis.

You actually just described President Obama. I am eagerly awaiting his take on this travesty of justice.

No i didn't.

 

[LarryAllen'sJockstrap]

So? Is your point that you think that Sharpton should involve himself in every single police shooting in the nation of someone unarmed, no matter what the race? Otherwise he is being inconsistent and should stay silent?

I have never understood the logic that unless one speaks out on every perceived injustice, then they don't have a right speak out at all on something directly impacting their minority community.

How is he part of the community? Just because he is black? Who is stereotyping now?

Using your logic, I have a special kinship with any white person on the face of the planet....can't wait to cross over into Canada and start my new life as a resident of Vancouver because I am part of their community.

Not sure Vancouver is your best example of a white persons enclave.

The majority of people in Vancouver are not white? I know it is a pretty cosmopolitan city, I think I'll have to check on that.

Just checked it. The majority of people in that city are indeed white. Since I am white I am in!

I don't know what you checked but the majority of the people in that City are not white

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Vancouver

As someone that lived there a long time it's even more prevalent on the ground.

Your link shows 47% white, 29.4% Chinese and no other population group above 6%.

 

[Henry Ford]

Following #ferguson on twitter, some people are justifying it because the stores being looted never give anything back to the community and that's what insurance is for.

They protested peacefully for 3 hours, but swat teams were brought in. That angered them and got the looting started.

A police officers house was reported to be burned down, so that one is easier to understand.

They're saying that most insurance policies don't cover civil unrest. Some people, people that had nothing to do with the shooting, lost everything last night. ####### awful.

Standard HO policies generally cover civil unrest and riots.

I was talking about the businesses. At least that's what they are reporting on the radio. Plenty of scary pictures. I used to live a couple of miles from here. Pretty surreal.

I would be surprised if that were the case. This sounds like a case of radio reporters not knowing what they're talking about.

It doesn't cover War or Acts of Terrorism, but civil unrest or riots are covered in every policy I've seen. This is a pretty standard policy.

Yeah, I don't know. One of the sponsors of the show had his tire business cleaned out and that's what he said.

That would be a very strange policy. Or a "liability only" policy, which would be a little odd for a store owner.

 

[meatwad1]

So? Is your point that you think that Sharpton should involve himself in every single police shooting in the nation of someone unarmed, no matter what the race? Otherwise he is being inconsistent and should stay silent?

I have never understood the logic that unless one speaks out on every perceived injustice, then they don't have a right speak out at all on something directly impacting their minority community.

How is he part of the community? Just because he is black? Who is stereotyping now?

Using your logic, I have a special kinship with any white person on the face of the planet....can't wait to cross over into Canada and start my new life as a resident of Vancouver because I am part of their community.

The above paragraph makes no sense, but carry on.

How so?

You made a straw man argument followed by a really poor analogy.

Why is the analogy poor? You are claiming that all blacks have a special right to speak out and protest when something bad happens to one of them anywhere in any community in the country. Are they really all 'brothers'? What makes them that? Their skin color? Do they all come from the same country? Or even the same continent? Is a black guy from Somalia the same as one from Uganda? What about a Haitian black dude, does he share a special bond with a black descended from Nigeria? My analogy is exactly the same as yours. I am going to move to a new country with all of my white brothers. After all, we are all the same, right? We are all white, just like Al Sharpton can come in and speak for all of the blacks, because they are all the same right. That is what I am hearing from you.

I think if you want to do the correct analogy you have to move to a country where whites are in the significant minority and up to 30years ago 50 years ago have very little rights and were treated sub-human. Then I think you are looking at the same type of situation. Nobody claims they are all the "same" (whatever that means) but it shouldn't be surprising when a proportion of the population reacts angrily when they feel that they are treated in a harmful way.

30 years ago is the 1980s. Blacks were treated as sub-humans in the 1980s. I must have missed that, because I grew up in a neighborhood on the northwest side of Milwaukee and I am pretty sure we didn't have any lynchings or what not.

Whatever it was, there is still no excuse for looting and they are only going to hurt themselves. Also, over the course of human history many cultures have been considered sub-human and have been used as slaves, it does not give carte-blanche to do whatever you want.