Originally posted by truejediA white Hispanic is someone who is racially white, but ethnically Hispanic/Latino. Like Cameron Diaz or Christina Aguilera.
seriously, what the hell is white/hispanic? We don't call Obama white/black.
Originally posted by truejediRace is an ambiguous word that can range from skin tone, ethnic background, language, nationality, other physical features. Or some combination of. In terms of 'white Hispanic", it seems to be people from Latin America of European ancestry.
how can you be racially white while ethnically hispanic? Doesn't that make the concept of "race" entirely arbitrary? The human race is so hypocritical.
But I'm sure if this were about a white teenager being killed instead of black, then Zimmerman would be labeled as only Hispanic. Race is brought up to make a statement, like Beefy said.
Shit.. Another one. The biggest difference between this and the other NJ case is that there are reports that the guy in this case was repeatedly jumped. That's jail time right there. Anyone have any input (Janus, make sure to try to actually address the argument this time around as you've failed miserably the last two times)?
Another interesting development in the Trayvon case.
DS, what argument can there be? A kid was harassed, and somehow came to the decision that he'd rather die than endure more. What's worse, this wasn't limited to hurtful words; he was actually attacked (apparently).
I understand that you can be against a measure of dubious efficacy (i.e. I'm not aware of evidence that anti-bullying laws do much to help prevent bullying). But I don't understand how you can be against the idea of doing something (anything!) to help (as your challenge to Janus seems to imply).
It's a weird situation, imo. There's been quite a few highly publicized incidents lately of people killing themselves due to bullying, so the problem should be addressed. However, I'm still against the idea of legally prosecuting someone because they, in essence, "said mean things" which caused someone to take their own life. I think the government should only get involved if a law is actually broken through the bully's action, i.e. that guy who video taped his gay roomy got convicted of invading dude's privacy. <--- That sounds good to me.
But again, "saying mean things" shouldn't be illegal, even if doing so may cause someone to kill themselves. I'm not one who likes to utilize slippery slope arguments, but this is one of those instances where I think it's important to consider the possible ramifications of making such a vague and easily abusable statement a law.
DS, what argument can there be? A kid was harassed, and somehow came to the decision that he'd rather die than endure more. What's worse, this wasn't limited to hurtful words; he was actually attacked (apparently).
I understand that you can be against a measure of dubious efficacy (i.e. I'm not aware of evidence that anti-bullying laws do much to help prevent bullying). But I don't understand how you can be against the idea of doing something (anything!) to help (as your challenge to Janus seems to imply).
Very misleading statement here. Where did I ever claim that nothing should be done? In fact, haven't I ALWAYS argued that something should be done? My stance is that "words" should not be a criminal offense and the only response to that is an emotional plea instead of an objective argument.
Some people are mentally stronger than others. Some people are weak. If I called you a queer, you'd shrug it off while someone like Gideon would cry and slit his wrists.
I think its a an gross oversimplifiaction to call it 'saying mean things'. I'm sure such an extreme reaction as suicide can't come about from anything but relentless and systematic victimisation.
Originally posted by Nephthys
Another gross oversimplification. And, so? You can call me corny, but I believe that its the duty of the strong to protect the weak. Are you seriously suggesting that we don't do anything because the suicide-victims are 'weak'? If anything that should make us more prone to act.
No, it isn't a gross oversimplification because most of the time, it IS just words.. And again, when did I suggest we DON'T do anything? I've mentioned many times how we should do less if it's internet related because as opposed to physical confrontations, where you may or may not have an advantage, the internet is an even ground for everybody.
Apologies, sometimes its hard to keep track of who has which stance. But even if it is 'just' words you can still harrass and victimise someone that way. Really, if you've been attacking someone through that kind of harrasment and they kill themselves.... it is still your fault. Thats what I think anyway.