Lefty

And yet, the threat of force provides the weight behind any government action--by the people, for the people, or not. Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

If defending yourself from harm isn't a right, what is? Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

No freakin' kidding. He must look like the blob monster from the end of "Akira" by now. Or Rosie O'Donnell. Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

Actually . . . You are correct there sir. What to do about it? I don't know. You are correct that it needs to be addressed. Simple: Buy more Rascals. Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

...*snort* Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

So, since the jury found that the killing was justified for reasons of self-defense, and you yourself are admitting that it wasn't murder, why do you keep going on and on about it? Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

We all have SS and Medicare taxes taken out of every paycheck. It is actually less socialistic to recoup some of that money by accepting the "benefits" when the time comes than it would be to not take them and, presumably, leave more money for others in the system. You have it backwards, it seems. Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

See thread "Florida choirboy in custody" Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

Voted Christianity...specifically Mormonism. Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

Je. Sus. Christ. You have got to be the most closed-minded academic I've ever encountered. Get out of your physics classroom and realize that asking uncomfortable questions and taking (admittedly) unpopular positions to prove a larger point does not make one a bigot and is not the racial equivalent of postulating that 2+2=5. No one in this thread has yet posted a pointlessly inflammatory remark...except you. Edit: Oh wait, and skinnay. I would expect more from a degreed intellectual type, though. Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

With respect, that seems to be a bit of a cop-out on a philosophical level. We know the law--it's the justification behind the laws being set up that way that's the more interesting problem here. I haven't seen anyone address that issue in this thread, yet. Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

Both have been. I don't remember implying otherwise. Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

What's the alternative? Groups who haven't been victimized? I doubt such a group exists. I just thought it telling that billvon's list didn't include, say, "white, male, or heterosexual" as additional characteristics for discrimination. Characteristics that, at first glance, are not as sympathetic. And my answer would still be yes. Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

The very essence of free trade is discriminatory--ie the customers must choose one service/goods provider over another. Why can't the reverse also be accepted? Would it make any sense to say that a Muslim customer would HAVE to purchase a cake with a cross on it? If not, why should the seller of a cake with a cross on it HAVE to sell to a Muslim? Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

Yes. You should probably move to another country then. Your kind of people died off a couple generations ago Either pay attention and learn something, or run along. Had billvon not tried for the cheap points by only listing historically victimized groups, my answer would have remained the same. Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

Yes. So do I. As long as they don't use any resources that are funded by the people that they refuse to serve. Meh. Just because my taxes help pave the roads in your neighborhood doesn't give me the right to enter your house and expect to be entertained. I see a private business as a part of the owners' private property. The owners, not the government, should choose the clientele they want to trade with. And the story in the OP link shows that private solutions (boycotts, protests, etc.) are effective at punishing businesses that choose poorly. Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

Yes. Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

The bigger question is, why should a private business be forced by law to associate with anyone it doesn't want to? Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

Non sequitur of the day. Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

The thug life types might want to lay low for a while, unless this particular species of cockroach enjoys the spotlight. Clicky. Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

No harm, no foul. I'm a bit short on sleep lately so it took just the right combination of words to get through the haze. Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

Gotcha. Maybe you are correct in that regard, but I don't see the initial release of the suspects as a necessary condition for comparison. Both cases are high-profile now, for one reason or another. Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

Seriously? Maybe we're talking past each other or something, because what you're talking about DID happen and people were upset with the procedural aspects, it's simply not the topic of discussion here. Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

Pfft. Don't play the kallend "please pay attention" game. It doesn't become you. You're admitting there were other objections to the case. "Racism" was among those other objections, and reactions from the media, politicians, and public figures prove me correct. Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

So let's see if we can sum this up: Zimmerman Trial Side A: "Racism! Racism! Racism!" Side B: "Woah guys there's no evidence of any racism." Result: No evidence of racism found. Chris Lane Shooting Side A: "Oh well they said they were bored so never mind whatever they said or posted about hating or beating up white people ('woods') prior to the shooting." Side B: "But...weren't you guys just bending over backwards trying to prove racial motivation in the Zimmerman case? Motivation that was never proven nor substantiated? Isn't that a bit hypocritical, not to mention intellectually lazy?" Result: Side B declared to be race-obsessed. Do I have that about right? Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin