# "She Had To Die Because She Was White"



## Kane (Jul 19, 2005)

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45145



> On a videotape played during a court hearing yesterday, a murder suspect said his victim "had to die" because she was white.   "I never seen her before, and I didn't care," Phillip Grant, 43, said on the tape. "As long as she had blond hair and blue eyes, she had to die."
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 Black guy kills a white woman in New York, says she had to die because she was white. Yet he is NOT charged with a hate crime. Why is that?

 If a white guy killed a black woman because she was black he's be charged with a hate crime in seconds. Isn't there a double standard here? What do you think?


----------



## Kmac (Jul 19, 2005)

Thats insane. I would go nuts too if people kept on tossing racist comments at me...But to go out and KILL someone just because they are white or black or red or whatever and being racist???? Thats just stupid. There is racism everywhere, but to go out and do something like that just adds to the problem.


----------



## MA-Caver (Jul 19, 2005)

Kane said:
			
		

> Black guy kills a white woman in New York, says she had to die because she was white. Yet he is NOT charged with a hate crime. Why is that?


Oh the answer to *that* one is easy... because he's black.


			
				Kane said:
			
		

> If a white guy killed a black woman because she was black he's be charged with a hate crime in seconds. Isn't there a double standard here? What do you think?


It *is* a double standard and it should be pointed out as such now-a-days. Perhaps when I was a teenager it was a little different, when I was a small child it was a lot different and before I was born it was completely different. 
That blacks are still feeling the stings of (white) racism cannot be denied, but they are achieving a *hellva* lot more than their fathers and grandfathers did when the Civil Rights Bill was passed two or three generations ago. 
That (some blacks) are failing to see the advancements and achievements that their race are making, in spite of racism compared to two or three generations ago is a mystery. IMO growing up over the last forty years I've seen the changes and sadly, the lack of changes being made. There are more positive changes than ever before but the negatives still open up the old wounds and allows the bitter blood of hatred seep into the youth of today who'll be the future tomorrow. 
The actions of this man and his openly cited reasons don't help the future generations at all. Same goes for the red-necked, suthern boys of the deep south and elsewhere along with the growing neo-nazi groups, and their ilk,  springing up in every city across the country spreading the seeds of hatred. 
Dammit I've said it elsewhere on other MT related topics; that hatred and racism can only be stopped in-the-home! It begins with teaching our children the real meaning of those true and just words of our beloved consitution that "...*all* men were created equal". 
That this animal wants to voluntarily remove himself from the gene pool is fine by me and I'll even help pull the switch! It'd be doing us *all* a favor.


----------



## elder999 (Jul 19, 2005)

http://news.findlaw.com/ap/o/51/07-06-2005/b56e000740ddfedf.html



> Grant was charged with second-degree murder and weapon possession. *Prosecutors say he could also be charged with a hate crime.*


----------



## Wild Bill (Jul 19, 2005)

There is a double standard but look beyond the obvious. Terms like hate crime and hate speech remind me of the book 1984 by George Orwell. Murder is already against the law. No one regardless of their race should be convicted of a thought crime if we are to call ourselves a free society.


----------



## Andrew Green (Jul 19, 2005)

*nalk xulk uk?
*


----------



## MA-Caver (Jul 20, 2005)

elder999 said:
			
		

> http://news.findlaw.com/ap/o/51/07-06-2005/b56e000740ddfedf.html
> 
> 
> > Grant was charged with second-degree murder and weapon possession. *Prosecutors say he could also be charged with a hate crime.*


*GOOD!*



			
				Wild Bill said:
			
		

> There is a double standard but look beyond the obvious. Terms like hate crime and hate speech remind me of the book 1984 by George Orwell. Murder is already against the law. No one regardless of their race should be convicted of a thought crime if we are to call ourselves a free society.


How can we be a free society if one thinks to hate and voices such thoughts outloud and in actions? 
We all *DO* have the "freedom from fear" and the right to live without fear don't we? This guy and others like him (of _any_ race) take that away from us.


----------



## Kane (Jul 20, 2005)

elder999 said:
			
		

> http://news.findlaw.com/ap/o/51/07-06-2005/b56e000740ddfedf.html
> Grant was charged with second-degree murder and weapon possession. *Prosecutors say he could also be charged with a hate crime.*


 That is good to hear, though it is about time. I mean if it was a white man he would be charged for a hate crime in seconds, it seems that it takes longer with other races possibly because of politcal correctness but thankfully this did not conclude to be a political correct case.

 Well that is if he actually is charged, it said in the article that he *could* if it was a white man who killed a black woman the court no doubt would give him a hate crim without question and never use words like "could". So there still might be a double standard here.


----------



## jonah2 (Jul 20, 2005)

Kane said:
			
		

> What do you think?


Im not going to get into the race aspect here, but, political correctness double standards in general.

Double standards happen throughout society but things are changing.

We can have MOBO awards but try hosting a MOWO event  not going to happen.
We have a gay pride march  try organising a straight pride march

Cant think of any others at present but you know where I am coming from here 

As I approach my 'so-called middle' age, I feel that society has left me out of the PC protection as a white, middle aged, straight man 

The law is set up correctly to protect all citizens but the people enforcing them are subject to their interpretation of the PC slant. Until they have the guts to uphold the letter of the law  blind to PC  and stop being afraid of pressure groups things like this will happen

Jonah


----------



## ginshun (Jul 20, 2005)

A hate crime cannot be commited against a person who is white.

   That is just the reality as things are now.

 Charging someone with a "hate crime" is just stupid anyway if you ask me. If you intentionally go out and kill somebody, what is the difference why you did it? Is it somehow worse to kill a person because you don't like the color of their skin than it is to kill them because to don't like the color of their shirt?

   Not in my book.


 Edit: Upon looking for more info on this, I am not sure what is more disturbing. The fact that it happened, or the fact that I can find virtually nothing about it on any mainstream media site.   Hmmmm, I guess I will keep looking.


----------



## arnisador (Jul 20, 2005)

ginshun said:
			
		

> A hate crime cannot be commited against a person who is white.
> 
> That is just the reality as things are now.


 I think people have been charged with hate crimes in such circumstances. But, certainly, those are not the circumstances envisioned when the law was drafted.


----------



## Bammx2 (Jul 20, 2005)

"Hate crime"....what a stupid phrase to begin with.
 Cold blooded murder is cold blooded murder.

 But it's not enough for some people to accept that,so they have to create some other lame "phrase" to get more....whatever it is they are trying to get.

 That man killed an innocent woman and thats that!
 Was her blood white?!

 Here in the UK,if a white person commits a crime against someone of another color,he gets charged with a racially motivated hate crime.
  Turn it around....white guy is screwed.
 Why?
  Because there is no law allowing for it. When the law was made,it was said that it was IMPOSSIBLE for white people to be discrimanted against.
  Just like when queen victoria was "in office"...she made homosexuality against the law....for men only.
  She said it was not possible for women to be gay.
 Although that law isn't enforced anymore...it's never been rescended either.


----------



## DngrRuss (Jul 22, 2005)

jonah2 said:
			
		

> We can have MOBO awards but try hosting a MOWO event  not going to happen.
> We have a gay pride march  try organising a straight pride march
> 
> As I approach my 'so-called middle' age, I feel that society has left me out of the PC protection as a white, middle aged, straight man
> Jonah


 I am reminded of when I was a kid, I would ask, "hey, how come there's a Mother's Day and a Father's Day, but there's no Children's Day?"  The answer I would get (and I'm sure I'm not alone here), is, "Because Everyday is Children's Day."

 As a parent now, I understand that answer- though as a kid I thought it was trite and that my parents were merely blowing me off- since my kids spend day ofter day driving me to the end of my last nerve.   Hell, I deserve at least one day out of the year for a little appreciation.

 Why are there no Straight White Guy Days, parades, and award shows?  Cuz Everyday is Straight White Guy Day.  It's not like it's been very hard for us in this country.  I think that minorities have had a door opened for them in the last 30 or 40 years that allows them to present themselves to our multicultured society.  I say, good for them.  It's not like White guys have to present our accomplishements to the public.  What would we celebrate in our parade?  Let's see- Liquor, Cigarrettes, Oppression, and the Interstate Road System.  

 Hate, however, is hate.  The idea that whites cannot be discriminated against is ridiculous.  To discriminate is to pick one thing over another based on some sort of biased.  The race of the discriminator is irrelavant.  Government and Corporate discrimination still tends to reside in the hands of White Guys, however, among the public at large, and certainly in both civil and criminal matters, color should not matter since it should be looked at on a case by case basis.


----------



## BaiKaiGuy (Jul 22, 2005)

Also keep in mind that the "hate crimes" statute only really serves a limited purpose of increasing a sentence.  Assuming this case is a real case, he's probably looking at life, so what's the point?  I'd say it could be an aggravating factor, but again, he'll probably get life, which means life, so adding on a few extra years would do what besides be petty?


----------



## OUMoose (Jul 22, 2005)

BaiKaiGuy said:
			
		

> Also keep in mind that the "hate crimes" statute only really serves a limited purpose of increasing a sentence.  Assuming this case is a real case, he's probably looking at life, so what's the point?  I'd say it could be an aggravating factor, but again, he'll probably get life, which means life, so adding on a few extra years would do what besides be petty?


It's not petty due to the fact I've seen no mention of "life without the possibility of Parole".  So, locking this person up for as long as possible doesn't seem like a bad thing IMO.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jul 22, 2005)

"Hate Crimes" laws are really just feel good laws anyway. They are designed to give the impression of added protection. In reality, which is worse, killing grandma because she's a certain race, or killing grandma for her social security check*. It's clear to any reasonably intelligent person that killing grandma is equally wrong either way. The idea that we are going to make one murder wronger than another because of the internal motive of the killer seems bizarre to me.








*Of course there are some marxists who would claim the first one is worse, because the second is an 'economic' crime, as it is caused by the "system", not by the person, but that's why I said 'reasonably intelligent' person.


----------



## BaiKaiGuy (Jul 22, 2005)

OUMoose said:
			
		

> It's not petty due to the fact I've seen no mention of "life without the possibility of Parole". So, locking this person up for as long as possible doesn't seem like a bad thing IMO.


Genrally speaking "Life means Life".


----------



## Bigshadow (Jul 22, 2005)

Wild Bill said:
			
		

> There is a double standard but look beyond the obvious. Terms like hate crime and hate speech remind me of the book 1984 by George Orwell. Murder is already against the law. No one regardless of their race should be convicted of a thought crime if we are to call ourselves a free society.


 I agree with that.  However, there is clearly a double standard.


----------



## Bigshadow (Jul 22, 2005)

MACaver said:
			
		

> It begins with teaching our children the real meaning of those true and just words of our beloved consitution that "...*all* men were created equal".


  Actually it is the Declaration of Independence

 " We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

 Equal in Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness among other things. Does not mean that we are all biologically equal. For if we were, we ALL could win the Olympics.  I know I CANNOT, damn genes get in the way! LOL


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jul 22, 2005)

Bigshadow said:
			
		

> Actually it is the Declaration of Independence
> 
> " We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
> 
> Equal in Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness among other things. Does not mean that we are all biologically equal. For if we were, we ALL could win the Olympics. I know I CANNOT, damn genes get in the way! LOL


Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness, does not mean the achievment of happiness.  We have the right to pursue the goal of being in the Olympics, not the right to attain it without merit.


----------



## MA-Caver (Jul 22, 2005)

Bigshadow said:
			
		

> Actually it is the Declaration of Independence
> 
> " We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
> 
> Equal in Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness among other things. Does not mean that we are all biologically equal. For if we were, we ALL could win the Olympics.  I know I CANNOT, damn genes get in the way! LOL


Ah, thanks for the correction... apparently foot in mouth still reigns from time to time far as my memory of people/places/things. 

As far as the biologic equality...  :idunno: each race has it's strengths and weaknesses... who's better? Nobody when it comes down to it.


----------



## Thesemindz (Jul 22, 2005)

MACaver said:
			
		

> Ah, thanks for the correction... apparently foot in mouth still reigns from time to time far as my memory of people/places/things.
> 
> As far as the biologic equality...  :idunno: each race has it's strengths and weaknesses... who's better? Nobody when it comes down to it.



I have always heard that different races have different biological strengths and weaknesses. When I was in elementary school they taught us for instance that black people had "better" fast twitch muscles than white people, and that was why more black people were succesful in games like basketball which required more sprinting. This never made sense to me for alot of reasons, including the fact that black people seem to excel in alot of different sports, as do people of all races. I always thought that there were more blacks in basketball because it tended to be more of an urban sport. 

Now, I don't want to start a race war on this forum, but my question is do the races really have different strengths and weaknesses based on their biology? I don't mean to challenge your assertion, I'm just looking for anyone who knows some real factual information regarding this. If it's true, how does racial intermingling effect this? Eventually, maybe 5000 years from now but eventually, we'll probably all be grey anyway, how will that effect our strengths and weaknesses? Are all people of a certain race stronger or weaker in the same way? That doesn't seem accurate according to my experience, but I don't know.

So I guess what I'm asking is does anyone have any real scientific information to back up this assertion? 


-Rob


----------



## still learning (Jul 22, 2005)

Hello,  Not sure but I believe  convicted  criminals commits over 75% of the crime in America.

 The quilty get to do it over and over again with rest and recreation(jail time) and then is let go to roam free till they are caught again.

 Only the criminals has rights........to get release because of over crowding, and parole boards that has no thought to what is a rapist,child offender can do when release. These people never get cure from jail time.

   It happens only in America...........sometimes being bad can be good for you?....NOT!!!!!!           ...............Aloha


 In Hawaii it takes about $32,000 (per year) to care for one jail prisoner. The cost will never go down. Can we all afford this...YOUR taxes? 

   When it hits's over $50,000.00(per year) what will we do?   Go directly to jail...cheaper to live there?


 The world is getting over crowded...can we keep our cost of living down by keeping these (criminals ) alive....and for what...to be release and started there crime's again and again....... 

   when it happens to you....crime against you!  ...maybe you will change?


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jul 22, 2005)

Thesemindz said:
			
		

> I have always heard that different races have different biological strengths and weaknesses. When I was in elementary school they taught us for instance that black people had "better" fast twitch muscles than white people, and that was why more black people were succesful in games like basketball which required more sprinting. This never made sense to me for alot of reasons, including the fact that black people seem to excel in alot of different sports, as do people of all races. I always thought that there were more blacks in basketball because it tended to be more of an urban sport.
> 
> Now, I don't want to start a race war on this forum, but my question is do the races really have different strengths and weaknesses based on their biology? I don't mean to challenge your assertion, I'm just looking for anyone who knows some real factual information regarding this. If it's true, how does racial intermingling effect this? Eventually, maybe 5000 years from now but eventually, we'll probably all be grey anyway, how will that effect our strengths and weaknesses? Are all people of a certain race stronger or weaker in the same way? That doesn't seem accurate according to my experience, but I don't know.
> 
> ...


 According to Chris Rock (who got applauded for it) and Jimmy the Greek (who got fired for it), many african americans are better at sports such as basketball and football, because they have disproportionate size and strength as a result of selective breeding during slavery (of course it could have been Jimmy's racist way of pointing this out that got him fired, rather than the actual theory, Jimmy was a peach that way). 

Now, I don't comment on the veracity of this claim, other than to illustrate the varied people that hold this belief, and how they are perceived for having said it. Chris Rock says it, it's applauded.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Jul 22, 2005)

ginshun said:
			
		

> A hate crime cannot be commited against a person who is white.
> 
> That is just the reality as things are now.




I disagree.  I think a black or hispanic or asian could easily be charged with a hate crime if they killed or injured a white person.  One would have to prove it was racially motivated, just as they'd have to prove a white person was racially motivated in his killing of a black/hispanic/asian.

Personally I think the notion of a "hate crime" is silly.  As others have pointed out here murder is murder.  The fact that it was racially motivated could be used in sentencing, but I see no purpose in making the person's feelings about another person a crime in itself.  Essentially you're charging a person for what he believes.  

Murder is murder.  Assault is assault.  Rape is rape.  Race and sexual orientation ought not figure in at all when we charge someone with a crime.    By keeping this in mind we protect whites and non-whites from being penalized for a perspective.  

Now this is going to sound rather odd, coming from me, but hate is...or ought to be...a right.  When we get into criminalizing acts based on an emotion we step on to thin ice, and the double standard as pointed out will in no doubt take place as it has.  We can not legislate control over thought without confounding the legal process and moving away from fairness and common sense.  

That said, when we speak of double standards regarding race in our culture, methinks we white folks protest too loudly.  I find it rather odd, and rather demeaning, when caucasians play the role of a victim whose civil rights are being abridged.  If there are caucasians who suffer discrimination, it is more than likely because they are poor, not because they are white.   Suffering from racial discrimination in America is typically not a white experience.  True, we hear the occasional story of a white person who missed the cut for medical school, having been bumped by a minority...but this is far more rare than the daily discrimination that non-whites face in this country...and have for hundred of years.  

And as far as Gays (and someone here brought them up), I have never heard of Gays going to straight neighborhoods and beating up on heterosexuals.  When a homosexual pedophile gets caught, he's placed high on the skyline and homosexuality is blamed as the cause for his actions.  When a heterosexual pedophile gets caught...and they are far more prevalent...we don't hold heterosexuality up as a contributing factor in the crime.  That too is a double standard.


Regards,


Steve


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jul 23, 2005)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> I disagree. I think a black or hispanic or asian could easily be charged with a hate crime if they killed or injured a white person. One would have to prove it was racially motivated, just as they'd have to prove a white person was racially motivated in his killing of a black/hispanic/asian.


 Admission would seem to be powerful evidence.



			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> Personally I think the notion of a "hate crime" is silly. As others have pointed out here murder is murder. The fact that it was racially motivated could be used in sentencing, but I see no purpose in making the person's feelings about another person a crime in itself. Essentially you're charging a person for what he believes.


 I agree.  Getting murdered over $10.00 is no better or worse than getting murdered over skin color.



			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> Murder is murder. Assault is assault. Rape is rape. Race and sexual orientation ought not figure in at all when we charge someone with a crime. By keeping this in mind we protect whites and non-whites from being penalized for a perspective.


 Exactly. 



			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> Now this is going to sound rather odd, coming from me, but hate is...or ought to be...a right. When we get into criminalizing acts based on an emotion we step on to thin ice, and the double standard as pointed out will in no doubt take place as it has. We can not legislate control over thought without confounding the legal process and moving away from fairness and common sense.


 Thoughts should never be criminalized, only actions.  



			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> That said, when we speak of double standards regarding race in our culture, methinks we white folks protest too loudly. I find it rather odd, and rather demeaning, when caucasians play the role of a victim whose civil rights are being abridged. If there are caucasians who suffer discrimination, it is more than likely because they are poor, not because they are white. Suffering from racial discrimination in America is typically not a white experience. True, we hear the occasional story of a white person who missed the cut for medical school, having been bumped by a minority...but this is far more rare than the daily discrimination that non-whites face in this country...and have for hundred of years.


 The converse is that many minorities suffer far less than they would have you think.  Perception of racism is as powerful a force as actual racism.  I have to wonder at what point it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy.  



			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> And as far as Gays (and someone here brought them up), I have never heard of Gays going to straight neighborhoods and beating up on heterosexuals. When a homosexual pedophile gets caught, he's placed high on the skyline and homosexuality is blamed as the cause for his actions. When a heterosexual pedophile gets caught...and they are far more prevalent...we don't hold heterosexuality up as a contributing factor in the crime. That too is a double standard.


 Ok, let me get this straight (no pun intended) pedophilia is not homosexual or heterosexual, it is it's own sexual category.  There are pedophiles that engage in heterosexual and homosexual sex, but the key preference is children.  Therefore, the claim that hetersexual pedophilia is more prevalent is erroneous.  

In fact, by and large, the majority if pedophiles, while sometimes having a preference, are many times opportunistic, meaning they will pray on either sex. [/QUOTE] 

Regards,


Steve [/QUOTE]


----------



## bushi jon (Jul 23, 2005)

I have to tell you guys I am not happy. I was told today that I a job that I have posted in my shop has to be filled by a minority(and not the most qaulified one)I have interveiwed about 150 peoplemost could not read a ruler the 10 that could happen to be all white middle aged men. I was told I had to choose the in house candidate who could not only not read a ruler but could not do simple addding mutiplying and subtraction. I ask  simple questions on my test, and nobody but the older guys got it right. Her are some sample qs\

What is Linear feet? What is the linear foot of a board that 1x6x12  ans 12

If a board is 1x6x12 how many board ft sdo you have  ans 8

Then I give them the formula so only the math they need.

I hate having to hire because of eeoc


----------



## Brother John (Jul 23, 2005)

I personally think that the entire concept of a "Hate crime" is innapropriate.
It's like saying that one motive for murder makes the murder worse than any other motive. 
Murder is murder by and large, and should be prosecuted as such.

Your brother
John


----------



## Bigshadow (Jul 23, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness, does not mean the achievment of happiness. We have the right to pursue the goal of being in the Olympics, not the right to attain it without merit.


 That is precisely what I meant!  pursuit and achieve or have is not the same.


----------



## Bigshadow (Jul 23, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> because they have disproportionate size and strength as a result of selective breeding during slavery.


 Actually I would disagree. I would say it reflects more on the way each sub-species genetics evolved over time spent in the various environments across the globe. Some were more suited for survival in the cold climates, others in the warm/hot arid regions and so forth. I think this had very little to do with Selective breeding. That reeks of political correctness run amuck.


----------



## Bigshadow (Jul 23, 2005)

bushi jon said:
			
		

> I hate having to hire because of eeoc


   I personally think it is absurd that an employer cannot hire the MOST qualified individual.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jul 23, 2005)

Bigshadow said:
			
		

> Actually I would disagree. I would say it reflects more on the way each sub-species genetics evolved over time spent in the various environments across the globe. Some were more suited for survival in the cold climates, others in the warm/hot arid regions and so forth. I think this had very little to do with Selective breeding. That reeks of political correctness run amuck.


  The only way to really determine that is to study Africans still living in Africa and compare them African Americans.  That is the only way to study of the effects of those type of phenomenon.  

I don't really take seriously that claim, I just heard Chris Rock talking about it, and I remembered the trouble Jimmy the Greek got in to for nearly the same comment.  I just thought it was interesting to contrast the responses to two different people, making the same claim.  Though, I suppose, that it is possible that 300 years worth of selective breeding could alter things such as average height, weight, strength and a few other characteristics, i'm not sure if I buy the whole thing.


----------



## arnisador (Jul 23, 2005)

I'm iffy on the idea of hate crimes. It's one thing to make murdering a LEO or judge a special case, because that's an assault on our very system of government--but why is murdering someone based on ethnicity etc. worse than, say, a child who kills his parents? Murder is already what it is.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jul 23, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> I'm iffy on the idea of hate crimes. It's one thing to make murdering a LEO or judge a special case, because that's an assault on our very system of government--but why is murdering someone based on ethnicity etc. worse than, say, a child who kills his parents? Murder is already what it is.


  As I mentioned earlier, I believe that the hate crimes statutes aren't really designed to enhance the penalty for murder.  It seems more designed to be a token show of support for minorities.  It's really a window dressing statute.  Where the hate crimes statutes seem to be more applied, however, is curb certain kinds of speech, i.e. any speech that is racially charged.  In the curbing of certain kinds of speech, hate crime statutes seem to have a role.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Jul 23, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Admission would seem to be powerful evidence.


Very true.



			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> The converse is that many minorities suffer far less than they would have you think.  Perception of racism is as powerful a force as actual racism.  I have to wonder at what point it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy.



Perceptions?

Then you're suggesting we've come quite far since I was a child.  In the 60's it wasn't merely a perception.  I suggest it isn't merely a perception now.

Four years ago or so we had a young man here in Bloomington, Benjamin Smith, shoot a Korean student to death outside his church. Smith, a white supremacist, then went on a shooting spree up in Illinois, killing Ricky Birdsong and wounding nine others.  I was a block or so from the shooting and missed seeing it by one minute.  Or did I imagine that?

An isolated incident?  Perhaps.  Four weeks later as I was coming back from a tournament I stopped off at a restaurant in Richmond, Indiana.  There, next to the Shoney's, sat one of the "World Church of the Creator," "churches"  founded by Matthew Hale, Smith's mentor.  In the restaurant parking lot two families in their Sunday finest were saying goodbye to each other...and I swear on my father's sword...they gave each other Fascist salutes (and the women giggled at that) before departing.  I wish I was making that up.

Racism isn't perceived in this country because of the "power of the frown."  It has been justly demonized and it has gone underground.  Here in southern Indiana it is very much alive...you just need to scrape down a bit to find it...and not far at that.

I'd love to have a dollar (used to be a nickel, but I'm adjusting for inflation) for every time I've heard, "There are black men, and there are ******s."  How generous.  They've been so nice as to recognize there are black men.  

Not long ago I was talking to a man about Bush's Hispanic cabinet appointments (Gonzales to DOJ, Martinez to HUD), and he snorted...asking if Bush had appointed any "Americans" to his cabinet.  A similar story--some years ago one of my black belts was having coffee with his friend at the McDonald's across the street.  A man heard them speaking Spanish and yelled at them to "speak American!"  They told him they were...and went on with their conversation in Spanish, the only European language spoken on this continent for almost 150 years.

Two weeks ago here in Bloomington we had our mosque firebombed.  When I was an undergrad here they burned the synagogue.

When I was a child living in Lafayette, Indiana, my father (a journalist...and a Republican) published an editorial decrying racial injustice in America.  My sister received a phone call soon after threatening each of the family's children.  They knew our first names...including my baby brother's.  Late one night they blew the front door of our house off its hinges with a bomb.

I leave you to the racists themselves and [/I]their_ perceptions.  Just a few of many.  Read a few, and we can agree that the perception of racism is indeed a powerful thing:

http://www.geocities.com/white_truth/

http://www.tgia.net/Links/Information_Sites/White_Supremacy/white_supremacy.html

http://www.jewwatch.com/

http://www.kingidentity.com/

http://www.amren.com/index.html

http://www.whitepride.net/index.html




			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		


			Ok, let me get this straight (no pun intended) pedophilia is not homosexual or heterosexual, it is it's own sexual category.  There are pedophiles that engage in heterosexual and homosexual sex, but the key preference is children.  Therefore, the claim that hetersexual pedophilia is more prevalent is erroneous.
		
Click to expand...


Are you asking a question here or making a statement?

What I was attempting to say is that whenever a child molester rapes a child of the same sex, homosexuals who prefer sex with adults are then very often demonized themselves as being child molesters.  Heterosexuals who prefer sex with adults are not demonized when a child molester rapes a child of the opposite sex.  Is that more clear?  



			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		


			In fact, by and large, the majority if pedophiles, while sometimes having a preference, are many times opportunistic, meaning they will pray on either sex.
		
Click to expand...


The majority of child molesters cross over lines of gender and age when they rape.  There is an increasing body of research supporting this.  DOJ reports indicate that a large number of sex offenders who have been jailed for sexually assaulting adults report themselves as having had a young victim at one time or another--for which they were not currently incarcerated.

Something to note here:  Pedophilia is a psychological term.  It isn't indicative of behavior.  It indicates a paraphilic fetishistic attraction to children who are pre-adolescents, contrasted to ephebophilia, which is an unnatural attraction to adolescents.

Child molestation is a legal term, and an act prosecutable by law.

A pedophile might never in his life ever harm a child. He might be fully aware of his inclination, recognizes it as dangerous, and he then "stays in the closet" as it were.  He might not break any law or act on his fantasies in any way.  

A child molester might not be pedophilic, but merely sociopathic...crossing over age and gender lines.  

Then too he might be neither sociopathic or a pedophile or ephebophile, yet comes under the hammer of the law--such as the nineteen year old who has a fourteen year old girlfriend.  Often the law allows for some leeway here.  

Over 95% of child molesters report themselves as heterosexual and state they're attracted to adults.  I suspect that true pedophiles are likely in the minority of total child molesters that we incarcerate...but they get an awful lot of press because of the behaviors of the non-pedophilic sociopath.  The latter may well be doing the majority of the raping and then incorrectly labeled "pedophilic."  Crimes against children get the headlines, as they ought...but sometimes the news can mislead us.  

Recently Jack McCafferty (spelling?) on CNN reported (in his typical curmudgeonly outrage) that there were 30,000 sex offenders walking the streets of Florida.  What people assume is that there are that many convicted child molesters in the population.  That isn't necessarily the case.  A sex offender--depending upon state law and definition--might be a rapist, an exhibitionist, a homosexual convicted under the old sodomy laws of his state, a peeping tom, a person who had sex with an animal (lock up your dogs, Jack), a froetturist, a prostitute. 





Regards,


Steve_


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jul 24, 2005)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> Perceptions?
> 
> Then you're suggesting we've come quite far since I was a child. In the 60's it wasn't merely a perception. I suggest it isn't merely a perception now.


 The claim that because it was true in the 1960's, it's true now, is a false argument. We have come quite far. Further, many of the ties that bind are of the african american communities own making now. It's the belief that, because it once was, it always will be, is ultimately self-destructive. 



			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> Four years ago or so we had a young man here in Bloomington, Benjamin Smith, shoot a Korean student to death outside his church. Smith, a white supremacist, then went on a shooting spree up in Illinois, killing Ricky Birdsong and wounding nine others. I was a block or so from the shooting and missed seeing it by one minute. Or did I imagine that?


 What does that have to do with racism in America? This thread started with a similar incident where a black man murdered a white woman because she was right? What does that prove? That all blacks are racists? Of course not. Wide spread institutional racism does not exist in this country, and to the extent that any of it lingers, that is by and far extremely exaggerated. You anecdotal story does nothing to prove that this country has not moved on since the 1960's.



			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> An isolated incident? Perhaps. Four weeks later as I was coming back from a tournament I stopped off at a restaurant in Richmond, Indiana. There, next to the Shoney's, sat one of the "World Church of the Creator," "churches" founded by Matthew Hale, Smith's mentor. In the restaurant parking lot two families in their Sunday finest were saying goodbye to each other...and I swear on my father's sword...they gave each other Fascist salutes (and the women giggled at that) before departing. I wish I was making that up.


 Again, that has anything to do with what? These anecdotal stories aren't really adding anything to your statement that racism is wide-spread and institutionalized. Again, my earlier statement stands, and that is that the perception of racism is as damaging to the black community as any real racism. Many black leaders are coming to that conclusion as well. It's the victimhood that the black community needs to get beyond to move in to the role in society that they deserve. The key to the chains that bind them is in their own hands.



			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> Racism isn't perceived in this country because of the "power of the frown." It has been justly demonized and it has gone underground. Here in southern Indiana it is very much alive...you just need to scrape down a bit to find it...and not far at that.


 Institutionalized racism has ended. Racism to the extent that you refer to it, i.e. individual racism, however, is endemic and widespread. Much researchs suggest that racism may, itself, be a nearly universal phenomenon. Out-group descrimination is present in every single society on this planet. So, to the extent that you use a lack of racism as the benchmark, it is an impossible goal to achieve. We have achieved, however, and end to institutionalized racism.



			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> I'd love to have a dollar (used to be a nickel, but I'm adjusting for inflation) for every time I've heard, "There are black men, and there are ******s." How generous. They've been so nice as to recognize there are black men.


 See my above comment. This is hardly the benchmark of our society, as every society, culture, group of people, and nearly every individual has their ...isms. For example, racial descrimination and demonization is present in every culture. But those that don't utilize race to make their decision on who the out-group is use other standards....politics, religion, ethnicity, sex, language, nationality, etc...if you've every made a decision about persons character based on one of the above described, congradulations...you too have descriminated. It means you're a human being, with all the flaws. Our brains are designed to descriminate against outgroups. We have to guard against it, and try not to institutionalize it.




			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> Not long ago I was talking to a man about Bush's Hispanic cabinet appointments (Gonzales to DOJ, Martinez to HUD), and he snorted...asking if Bush had appointed any "Americans" to his cabinet. A similar story--some years ago one of my black belts was having coffee with his friend at the McDonald's across the street. A man heard them speaking Spanish and yelled at them to "speak American!" They told him they were...and went on with their conversation in Spanish, the only European language spoken on this continent for almost 150 years.


 Again, more anecdotal evidence, hardly evidence of wide-spread institutionalized racism. As I pointed out, the benchmark you propose to use is hardly reasonable. I could also give you a list of people that hate "whitey", but would that prove that all blacks are racists? I hardly think so.



			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> Two weeks ago here in Bloomington we had our mosque firebombed. When I was an undergrad here they burned the synagogue.


 That's pretty ironic.



			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> When I was a child living in Lafayette, Indiana, my father (a journalist...and a Republican) published an editorial decrying racial injustice in America. My sister received a phone call soon after threatening each of the family's children. They knew our first names...including my baby brother's. Late one night they blew the front door of our house off its hinges with a bomb.


 Again, another example of a lot of anecdotal evidence about nothing.



			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> I leave you to the racists themselves and [/I]their_ perceptions. Just a few of many. Read a few, and we can agree that the perception of racism is indeed a powerful thing:
> 
> http://www.geocities.com/white_truth/
> 
> ...


_ What you have listed is the work a few nuts. Again, I point out to you that the perception of racism is far in excess to any actual reality. How many black american's have even seen a klansman marching in person? I'd venture to guess a very small percentage. It's the perception that they are there that is powerful beyond their actual numbers. Again, racists of all races exists. The problem is that many black american's believe that a racist lives behind every tree, and it is that false belief that creates more problem than any actual racists. 



			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		


			Are you asking a question here or making a statement?

What I was attempting to say is that whenever a child molester rapes a child of the same sex, homosexuals who prefer sex with adults are then very often demonized themselves as being child molesters. Heterosexuals who prefer sex with adults are not demonized when a child molester rapes a child of the opposite sex. Is that more clear?
		
Click to expand...

 You'll never hear me make that statement. Again, as I pointed out, pedophilia is an entirely different sexual issue than homosexuality. 





			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		


			The majority of child molesters cross over lines of gender and age when they rape. There is an increasing body of research supporting this. DOJ reports indicate that a large number of sex offenders who have been jailed for sexually assaulting adults report themselves as having had a young victim at one time or another--for which they were not currently incarcerated.
		
Click to expand...

 A point I made. Most sexual predators are opportunistic in their behavior and choice of victims.



			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		


			Something to note here: Pedophilia is a psychological term. It isn't indicative of behavior. It indicates a paraphilic fetishistic attraction to children who are pre-adolescents, contrasted to ephebophilia, which is an unnatural attraction to adolescents.
		
Click to expand...

 It's a distinction that I am very aware of, having both studied the behavior and having dealt with many pedophiles first hand. A person that engages in pedophilic behavior is a pedophile. Again, it is a seperate sexual orientation than heterosexual or homosexual. 



			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		


			Child molestation is a legal term, and an act prosecutable by law.
		
Click to expand...




			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		


			A pedophile might never in his life ever harm a child. He might be fully aware of his inclination, recognizes it as dangerous, and he then "stays in the closet" as it were. He might not break any law or act on his fantasies in any way.
		
Click to expand...

 Just as any sexual orientation might choose not to engage in that behavior. However, sexual drives are extremely powerful. The danger always exists that a person will act out those fantasies. Their power is evident to anyone who understands that it's akin to telling a hetersexual person never to engage in sexual activity again. The drives are extremly powerful and dangerous in a pedophile. A person who has acted on those fantasies once, WILL do it again.



			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		


			A child molester might not be pedophilic, but merely sociopathic...crossing over age and gender lines.
		
Click to expand...

 A child molestor who engages in sexual activity with a pre-pubescent child has engaged in pedophilic behavior, though they may not primarily and solely be pedophilic. 



			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		


			Then too he might be neither sociopathic or a pedophile or ephebophile, yet comes under the hammer of the law--such as the nineteen year old who has a fourteen year old girlfriend. Often the law allows for some leeway here.
		
Click to expand...

 Which is not a crime in the state of Missouri. However, sexual relations with post-pubescent but underage teens is a can of worms seperate from this issue. 



			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		


			Over 95% of child molesters report themselves as heterosexual and state they're attracted to adults. I suspect that true pedophiles are likely in the minority of total child molesters that we incarcerate...but they get an awful lot of press because of the behaviors of the non-pedophilic sociopath. The latter may well be doing the majority of the raping and then incorrectly labeled "pedophilic." Crimes against children get the headlines, as they ought...but sometimes the news can mislead us.
		
Click to expand...

 Or the other possibility is that reporting is flawed. Many pedophiles may list themselves as primarily hetersexual as a way of describing themselves as more normal than they are. This is very likely the case in some circumstances, and maybe many. That's the problem with research that is based on reporting, as this topic necessarily is. Self-reporting is full of all sorts of built in error producing problems.



			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		


			Recently Jack McCafferty (spelling?) on CNN reported (in his typical curmudgeonly outrage) that there were 30,000 sex offenders walking the streets of Florida. What people assume is that there are that many convicted child molesters in the population. That isn't necessarily the case. A sex offender--depending upon state law and definition--might be a rapist, an exhibitionist, a homosexual convicted under the old sodomy laws of his state, a peeping tom, a person who had sex with an animal (lock up your dogs, Jack), a froetturist, a prostitute.
		
Click to expand...

 I'm looking at my states sex offender list, and none of the minor offenses you listed are on any of these. In Missouri, for example, being a peeping tom is not an offense, it is criminal trespass, and as such is not a sex offense.  Ditto prostitution, a prostitute is not considered a sex offender per the reporting statute.  Also, Missouri doesn't charge adults with violation of sodomy laws, and they will likely be completely removed from any statute soon.

A note on peeping toms, however. They aren't harmless. Many sexual predators start out as peeping toms, until they gain the courage to engage in more serious activities.

I'll link you to it. http://www.mshp.state.mo.us/cgi-bin/ibi_cgi/ibiweb.exe




Regards,


Steve [/QUOTE]_


----------



## Brother John (Jul 24, 2005)

Hey guys, I'm not going to get into the huge and nasty business of racism, homophobia and the like... it's wrong.
BUT: I'm looking for a definitive argument for why it's necessary to have crimes designated and differentiated as "Hate" crimes; and thereby given different penalties under the law.
I'd like to be better informed on this, in other words.
Can ya help a brother out?

Your Brother
John


----------



## Bigshadow (Jul 24, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> I don't really take seriously that claim, I just heard Chris Rock talking about it, and I remembered the trouble Jimmy the Greek got in to for nearly the same comment.


 Without straying off-topic too much, I don't find it suprising that Chris Rock can get away with racist comments while his caucasian counter parts will get roasted at the stake. Actually pretty typical. It goes right along with the "Hate-crime" mentality.


----------



## FearlessFreep (Jul 24, 2005)

_Actually I would disagree. I would say it reflects more on the way each sub-species genetics evolved over time spent in the various environments across the globe._

 Didn't Howard Cosell get fired for saying as much about black athletes and Africa?


----------



## TonyM. (Jul 24, 2005)

I like that Whoopie Goldberg thinks that Jimmy the Greek was spot on.


----------



## Bigshadow (Jul 25, 2005)

FearlessFreep said:
			
		

> _Actually I would disagree. I would say it reflects more on the way each sub-species genetics evolved over time spent in the various environments across the globe._
> 
> Didn't Howard Cosell get fired for saying as much about black athletes and Africa?


 I Don't know.  Could have.  Actually it wouldn't surprise me.  We are living the story of "The Emporer's new clothes".


----------



## DngrRuss (Jul 25, 2005)

FearlessFreep said:
			
		

> Didn't Howard Cosell get fired for saying as much about black athletes and Africa?


 I don't remember if he was suspended, or just sanctioned (he had tremendous power at ABC), but what he actually said while commenting on a track and field event was, "Look at that monkey run!" as a black American was pulling ahead.

 Jimmy the Greek was fired for his comments about black atheletes and the fact that they were bred for hard labor. If I remember correctly:
  a- he was drunk at an event and an interviewer caught up with him
  b- he made statements about black athletes not being as capable of competing in events like swimming as opposed to football
  c- what he stated was not a scientific or social commentary as much as it was a drunk rambling


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jul 25, 2005)

DngrRuss said:
			
		

> I don't remember if he was suspended, or just sanctioned (he had tremendous power at ABC), but what he actually said while commenting on a track and field event was, "Look at that monkey run!" as a black American was pulling ahead.
> 
> Jimmy the Greek was fired for his comments about black atheletes and the fact that they were bred for hard labor. If I remember correctly:
> a- he was drunk at an event and an interviewer caught up with him
> ...


That Jimmy the Greek, what a kidder.


----------

