Difficult Civil Rights Question

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by DanaC

what is NAMBLA?

A pedophile organization in the US.

That's paedophile, to you. :-)

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by DanaC

He should be dismissed for taking an oath which runs contrary to his duties.

That he has done so is an unproven proposition. I don't think the oath quoted here makes the grade.

Originally Posted by The Oath

...will most zealously and valiantly shield and preserve by any and all justifiable means and methods...white supremacy...

Lots of loopholes in that one. On purpose I'm sure.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by MaggieL

A pedophile organization in the US.

That's paedophile, to you. :-)

(and not paediatrician)

[bluecuracao]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

NAMBLA has a right to exist, but their members shouldn't be working in day care.

I was thinking along similar lines. Would this be a "difficult civil rights question" if the officer in question had joined NAMBLA? Their right to free speech has been supported by the ACLU, too.

[Aliantha]

Originally Posted by MaggieL

I didn't vote in the poll because I think it is defectively framed. I'm sure some others felt the same way.

You sure you don't just mean "I'm not done arguing about this yet."?

I was interested in the 60% or so of people who agree that he should be kicked out. I've made my case quite clearly thanks Maggie, so I don't intend to argue about it any further. You seem to one of the few who don't seem to understand it, but that's ok. Perhaps a few remedial classes might help?

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by Aliantha

I was interested in the 60% or so of people who agree that he should be kicked out. I've made my case quite clearly thanks Maggie, so I don't intend to argue about it any further. You seem to one of the few who don't seem to understand it, but that's ok. Perhaps a few remedial classes might help?

Well, you stated badly who you were interested in hearing from. Having claimed that a majority agree with you (unsupported, given how defectively the poll question was worded), you said wanted to hear from "other people", which I took to mean people on the other side of the issue rather than "other people who agree with Aliantha"...which seems kinda pointless. Disappointingly, it turns out that you're interested in the opinions of those who agree with you, so you can stroke each other's outrage and moral superiority, I suppose.

I understand your "case" just fine: you're willing to sacrifice an important legal principle for your pet "identity politics" victim issue. As for remedial classes, I'd suggest you read Orwell's 1984 again. (Assuming you read it once...it *used* to be required reading in high school.)

Originally Posted by Ibram

If I say 'I fucking swear, I'm gonna murder him in his sleep!" it doesn't mean I should go to jail, it means I need a punching bag or something. Saying, believing, even swearing something is not grounds for persecution, because as maggie says, that's thought policing. The moment something is DONE, then there's hell to pay. I think Spexxvet has it right. I PERSONALLY think the guy SHOULD be fired and done away with, but "he's in the KKK!", while a good reason, is not a VALID reason for it, because that's saying its not legal to be racist. That isn't true. It ISN'T legal to DISCRIMINATE, therefore, it is a simple matter of proving that his obvious racism resulted in unfair treatment.

If you told me you were going to harm me I would have no choice but to choose believe you and take appropriate action. How would I knowthat you are telling the truth or not?... best to err on the side of caution.

[9th Engineer]

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

best to err on the side of caution.

So you're advocating premptive action then, you want to punish based on the outcome you think will happen rather than any actual crime.

[Aliantha]

Just to clarify things for those here who seem to have difficulties with simple comprehension, people may be of the same opinion but for different reasons Maggie. There are quite a substantial number who happen to agree with my perspective and yet more of the people who disagree have stated their reasons for doing so. I'm interested in knowing why.

Your attitude is offensive. I suggest you spend a bit more time in reality. Perhaps it'd teach you some common courtesy, or is it that your own sense of self worth is so low that you have to act with such condescension to boost yourself up a bit? Your posts attempt to ridicule and belittle anyone who disagrees with your point, and while this is your 'right' legally, it suggests that you have serious social issues which you should address.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by Aliantha

I suggest you spend a bit more time in reality.

I'd suggest you stop confusing your opinions with reality.

[Aliantha]

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by 9th Engineer

So you're advocating premptive action then, you want to punish based on the outcome you think will happen rather than any actual crime.

So you're advocating premptive action then, you want to punish based on a direct mortal threat rather than any actual crime.
Damn straight.

Considering your background, I suspect you haven't happened upon people who would say that and then do it. Believe me, they are out there in greater numbers than reason would dictate. You can suspect, but never know, exactly who they are until it's to late. The only reasonable defense is assuming if somebody threatens to kill you, they mean it.

Originally Posted by 9th Engineer

So you're advocating premptive action then, you want to punish based on the outcome you think will happen rather than any actual crime.

It is not preinpitve... you took action with your threat... you assumed the stance of aggressor.
You stated that you WOULD do harm to me, not that you MAY do harm to me.
If I allowed it, I would have no one to blame but myself... quite stupid on my part when you gave me an absolute & definite warning of your impending action.

[Stormieweather]

Actually, verbally threatening to harm someone is assault, legally. Battery is actually touching a person without consent. Someone who robs a bank, for example, and threatens to blow everyone's heads off is guilty of aggrevated assault (assault committed during the commission of a crime). He may never have laid a finger on a single person in that bank, but the threat of harm is still a crime.

Stormie

[DanaC]

Maggie and Aliantha, I swear, someone needs to bash your heads together then make you shake hands!