Atheists, George Zimmerman and the burden of proof

[là bạn điên]

Fair enough on the point of ideology vs. position.

However, the fact that my positions coincide with a lot of ideologues doesn't mean that ideology is driving them. From my own perspective, I underwent a shift from (in American terms) conservative to liberal over a number of years. This went issue-by-issue. I personally consider the individual issues more important than any unifying trend that my position on those issues might signify. '

You seem quite rapidly leftist on economic matters. What issues do you not share the standard leftist position on?

With the irony being that most of the people who toss out the term are, in fact, doing precisely that. Usually in greater numbers and concentration and with more deliberation. In fact, for a lot of American conservatives, the accusation of 'race baiting' amounts to little more than an attempt to preserve the power and influence they have enjoyed for their entire lives thanks to their white skin.

Even if that is true it still doesn't negate the veracity of the term. The Jesse Jackson and Al Sharptons of this world need to be pulled up along with their followers who endorse their lies.

You assume a great deal about my motives. Are you telepathic?

I can only go by what you post/. You aren't a frothing loon like Minimalist but you appear to share his views.

There are no shortage of self-described "colorblind" people whose idea of colorblindness is insisting that racism doesn't exist anymore, and whenever evidence to the contrary is exhibited, those who display the evidence are considered 'race baiters'.

Complete strawman. race baiters IGNORE any evidence and take a side on ideological grounds. I am pretty certain that had the Zmmerman/Martin roles been reversed you would have switched sides with the same evidence.

Were there some people who did that on 'my side'? Sure. But, as I pointed out (and as you pointedly ignored), the situation for young black males in particular is that they are at an automatic disadvantage. There were many, far more, on 'the other side' who continue to insist that Trayvon Martin's combination of age, gender and skin color make it inherently more likely that he deserved what he got. Point this out is not 'race baiting'. It is pointing out reality. There are plenty of cases of it, well-documented.

I don't think that Martin deserved to be shot (unless he actually intended to Kill/Seriously Injure Zimmerman in which case he did) I think he decided to assualt Zimmerman and since I don;t think physical assualt should be tolerated I think he should have gone into detention for a number of weeks. Unfortunately the hobby of attacking people you think may be following you may very well lead to your demise.

Reality is ,of course, that except in the minds of the ideologically blinkered it is true that young black men are the most criminally minded combination of sex,skin colour and age in the USA (and indeed the UK). Stating that isn't racist either (much as people of YOUR ideology often insist it is). You leftists and the Conservatives are two sides of the same coin. You both judge on race rather than as individuals

Regarding groups vs. individuals: Everybody is both, to a large degree. Our socio-economic-political apparatus is far too large to address the needs of every individual on every single topic. This is unfortunate, but also a reality that some of us have decided to live with and utilize in a positive manner.

None of you use it in a positive manner. Except in the case of race or gender specific medical reasons ( such as breat cancer, Tay Sachs or sickle cell anaemia) discrimination is always a bad thing for society as a whole and only increases racial hatred.

I personally seek more freedom for individuals, especially on social issues. One of those freedoms is the freedom for young, black males to be given a fair shake.

You don;t want freedom. You want special treatment.

We're nowhere near that point yet. If the Martin case demonstrates anything clearly, it's that.

It doesn't demonstrate anything of the sort .All it demonstrates is that the media is vastly more concerned over the killing of a black person by a white person than of a white person by a black person (which generally goes unreported)

Was there some backlash against that? Was it unjustified? The answer to both is 'maybe', but what the hell do you expect after 400 years, and counting, of this kind of treatment?

Backlash? Are you referring to the unprovoked racist attacks on white and latino people committed by thugs that was condoned by the left and their racebaiting allies?

[EvolutionKills]

Just thought I'd put this out here. (Some NSFW language)

[Ben Davis]

*insert tuppence

I hear people that profess to be atheists demand that Zimmerman was convicted despite their NOT being proof beyond doubt that he was guilty...

That's because an individual's position on the existence of god/s has little/no bearing on their view of justice/application of law. Also, you seem to be under the impression that all atheists come by their position due to application of the 'burden of proof argument' when that's clearly fallacious.

Is it just that political ideology just takes over for some people?

Possibly. It's also possible that you're adding extra baggage to your definition of 'atheist'. It's even more possible that you're mislabelling people as 'idealogues' because you have a tendency to want to oversimplify the positions of others instead of questioning them more thoroughly before coming to conclusions regarding their value-systems.

You were certainly guilty of that last one with me and your discussion here with Ryantology smacks of the same. It's really frustrating: very few people are that one-dimensional and I know you know this!

Anyway, sorry for the interruption: please continue.

[là bạn điên]

Ben Davies. When your position on every issue corresponds to the norm for a particular ideology then you are an ideologue. I knew in advance that Minimalist was going to come down on the side he did . You can predict his position on everything -its the standard new left position. When people actually differ from the ideological position is where they cease to be ideologues.

There ARE plenty of one dimensional people around.

[Ryantology]

You seem quite rapidly leftist on economic matters. What issues do you not share the standard leftist position on?

There are admittedly few, but among them are that I support the development of GMO foods, I don't support legislation on unhealthy foods, and I'm not a huge fan of race-based affirmative action (though not for the same reasons conservatives tend to be).

Again, there is a distinction to be made between ideology and a point-by-point agreement that coincides with an ideology.

Even if that is true it still doesn't negate the veracity of the term. The Jesse Jackson and Al Sharptons of this world need to be pulled up along with their followers who endorse their lies.

It does negate the veracity of the term in a great many contexts, because that term is used most frequently by racists defending racism, close to the point where the term itself is a racist expression.

I can only go by what you post/. You aren't a frothing loon like Minimalist but you appear to share his views.

Does a person's viewpoints necessarily dictate the reasons why that person holds the viewpoint?

There are no shortage of self-described "colorblind" people whose idea of colorblindness is insisting that racism doesn't exist anymore, and whenever evidence to the contrary is exhibited, those who display the evidence are considered 'race baiters'.

Complete strawman. race baiters IGNORE any evidence and take a side on ideological grounds. I am pretty certain that had the Zmmerman/Martin roles been reversed you would have switched sides with the same evidence.

Wait, you yell 'strawman' in one sentence and then set up your own in the next? I am interested to know how many examples of my opinions regarding race you consulted before you came to this conclusion.

Earlier in this thread, I made a point to mention that I didn't make assumptions about your views on race in spite of you sharing viewpoints with racists. Apparently you do not give others that benefit of the doubt. Yet, I'm the ideologue.

Were there some people who did that on 'my side'? Sure. But, as I pointed out (and as you pointedly ignored), the situation for young black males in particular is that they are at an automatic disadvantage. There were many, far more, on 'the other side' who continue to insist that Trayvon Martin's combination of age, gender and skin color make it inherently more likely that he deserved what he got. Point this out is not 'race baiting'. It is pointing out reality. There are plenty of cases of it, well-documented.

Yeah, that hobby is dangerous, which is why it seems unlikely to me that it went down that way.

Reality is ,of course, that except in the minds of the ideologically blinkered it is true that young black men are the most criminally minded combination of sex,skin colour and age in the USA (and indeed the UK). Stating that isn't racist either (much as people of YOUR ideology often insist it is). You leftists and the Conservatives are two sides of the same coin. You both judge on race rather than as individuals

It's not racist to say that?

I'm not so sure about that, because it is a completely disingenuous statement. Young black men are also one of the demographics most likely to be impoverished, and poverty is, by far, the strongest correlating factor when measuring levels of criminal activity. It may not be your intention (again, giving you a benefit of the doubt you seem completely unwilling to give me), but your statement definitely implies that race is the primary causative factor in criminal activity, and if that is what you're implying, then it's a racist statement.

None of you use it in a positive manner. Except in the case of race or gender specific medical reasons ( such as breat cancer, Tay Sachs or sickle cell anaemia) discrimination is always a bad thing for society as a whole and only increases racial hatred.

Why am I the ideologue when you're the one placing me inside of all the blanket statements and generalizations?

You don;t want freedom. You want special treatment.

Point out to me one example of me advocating for 'special treatment'.

It doesn't demonstrate anything of the sort .All it demonstrates is that the media is vastly more concerned over the killing of a black person by a white person than of a white person by a black person (which generally goes unreported)

Are you fucking kidding me?

Backlash? Are you referring to the unprovoked racist attacks on white and latino people committed by thugs that was condoned by the left and their racebaiting allies?

Okay, see, when you use the word 'thug' as a replacement for 'black', then there's really no doubt that you're a racist. I can't suspend disbelief on that any further.

[Mister Agenda]

8 Months on and George Zimmerman is back in the news. I'm sure the various details have been talked to death but as atheists our argument is simple, we state the burden is on theists to demonstrate the existence of god and yet with Zimmerman/Martin I hear people that profess to be atheists demand that Zimmerman was convicted despite their NOT being proof beyond doubt that he was guilty.

To expect any group of people grouped only because they share one opinion to have consistent views on other topics is irrational.

I have no idea what his real intent was (and nor do you or anyone else but Zimmerman himself) and have no idea what happened in the 2 minutes prior to the shooting but what is clear is that there is no proof that a murder (ie the Killing of a person, in being, unlawfully;with malice aforethought or during the commitment of a felony) took place.

That's probably why he wasn't convicted, isn't it?

Is it just that political ideology just takes over for some people?

If you have trouble with people having opinions that you don't think follow from what you presume are their other opinions, your life will be full of disappointment. You went wrong the moment you tried to associate atheism with the opinions of some atheists you've heard sound off about Zimmerman.

[Angrboda]

Regarding groups vs. individuals: Everybody is both, to a large degree. Our socio-economic-political apparatus is far too large to address the needs of every individual on every single topic. This is unfortunate, but also a reality that some of us have decided to live with and utilize in a positive manner.

None of you use it in a positive manner.

And yet you claim to deal with people as individuals rather than members of a group.

Despite this noble claim, your posts are rife with generalizations about groups, and conclusions about individuals based on those generalizations. You aren't so much wrong as you are a liar, a confused idiot, and a bigot.

[là bạn điên]

There are admittedly few, but among them are that I support the development of GMO foods, I don't support legislation on unhealthy foods, and I'm not a huge fan of race-based affirmative action (though not for the same reasons conservatives tend to be).

Being anti GMO is a hippy thing not neccesarily a left thing. I am pro GMO foods because it helps the poorest people in the world afford food and gain nutritients (like Golden rice)

It does negate the veracity of the term in a great many contexts, because that term is used most frequently by racists defending racism, close to the point where the term itself is a racist expression.

I don't accept that. I have seen it used to attack people like Sharpton and Jackson who are out and out racists who use race as a means to further their political positions. If you can justify Sharpton's actions in Tawan Brawley to me then I consider further

Does a person's viewpoints necessarily dictate the reasons why that person holds the viewpoint?

No neccessarily but certainly often

Wait, you yell 'strawman' in one sentence and then set up your own in the next? I am interested to know how many examples of my opinions regarding race you consulted before you came to this conclusion.

Your actions here certainly indicate that you hold a hard left viewpoint on rac

It's not racist to say that?

Say what exactly?

I'm not so sure about that, because it is a completely disingenuous statement. Young black men are also one of the demographics most likely to be impoverished, and poverty is, by far, the strongest correlating factor when measuring levels of criminal activity. It may not be your intention (again, giving you a benefit of the doubt you seem completely unwilling to give me), but your statement definitely implies that race is the primary causative factor in criminal activity, and if that is what you're implying, then it's a racist statement.

You may infer that but I certainly did not imply it. You leftists always want it both ways you want to highlight ways that white people unfairly treat black people but then refuse to acknowledge the ways the reverse and call such acknoweldgement racist.

Poverty IS a factor in certain types of crime especially ones concerning appropriation of property. Petty theft is endemic in the poorest communities, no matter what color they are, what is an issue is the amount of the most serious crimes such as rape and murder that are committed by people and I cannot see poverty as an excuse for rape.

Being an extremists you look for simple answers to complicated questions. "oh its just poverty and its the fault of white people" is the standard retort. Wheras the reality is that it is a combination of poverty, a culture amongst teenagers that devalues education, absence of father figures as disciplinary agents and role models, a sense of alienation from majority society, cultural imagery that glorifies criminal lifestyles and genetically higher than average levels of testosterone. Because I am a liberal and beleive in the scientific process and am essentially a determinist I fully understand that people subject to all the above are going to be vastly more likley to commit crime. I have no interest in punishment or retribution but to seek effective methods of dealing with the situation, something that sets me directly apart from conservatives .

Why am I the ideologue when you're the one placing me inside of all the blanket statements and generalizations?

Because yo0u have just defended race based preferences claiming that they have positive outcomes which I have not actually seen.

Are you fucking kidding me?

Absolutely not. This happens in the UK as well as the US. In the same week in Florida two british tourists were murdered , utterly unprovoked by several black men. It only made the Miami news. Some of teh most appalling crimes are just ignored

Okay, see, when you use the word 'thug' as a replacement for 'black', then there's really no doubt that you're a racist. I can't suspend disbelief on that any further.

That is the most doctrinaire, idiotic leftist nonsense I have heard. When I say thug I mean thug.

Did most black people take part in these attacks? NO they didn't

Was It a small violent Thuggish minority, a tiny proportion of the numbers of black people? YES it was

Did some attacks get stopped through the actions of Black people? YES they did

Therefore would it be more accurate to describe the attackers as THUGS or BLACK PEOPLE?

The fact that you criticize my use of 'thugs' to describe people who certainly were thugs is somewhat puzzling. Perhaps you would like to explain why people who make unprovoked racist attacks are NOT thugs?

In fact the racist comment is yours since you equate such violent attacks as being the norm for black people rather than the norm for thugs.

[Ryantology]

That is the most doctrinaire, idiotic leftist nonsense I have heard. When I say thug I mean thug.

No you fucking didn't. You cannot actually expect anyone to think that 'thug' in this context is not a replacement for 'blacks' when you make a point of identifying the races of the victims.

rasetsu's got you pegged. So does Minimalist. You're a racist and a hypocrite. You've displayed all of the negative behavior of which you've accused me. I'm done. Fuck off.

[là bạn điên]

That is the most doctrinaire, idiotic leftist nonsense I have heard. When I say thug I mean thug.

No you fucking didn't. You cannot actually expect anyone to think that 'thug' in this context is not a replacement for 'blacks' when you make a point of identifying the races of the victims.

rasetsu's got you pegged. So does Minimalist. You're a racist and a hypocrite. You've displayed all of the negative behavior of which you've accused me. I'm done. Fuck off.

Ah. You are beaten and like every leftist shout racist when you have no reply. You cannopt take apart my rebuttel and resort to the usual position of the extremist-just shout!


It is quite obvious that the people who committed the attacks were thugs, yes they were also blacks but they were certainly all thugs. Only leftists so absurdly ideological that you think it is racist to call racist thugs 'thugs' can see otherwise.

The racist is YOU.

You are claiming that the people who made the racist assaults on other people are NOT thugs?

Minimalist and rasetu are both fruitcakes, rasetsu especially so, she is utterly bonkers if you want to join then be my guest.