Conquer Club

BigBallinStalin wrote:WHat if the judge was a Christian, the harasser a Mennonite, and the offender was a homeless man?

What then, CC? What then?

all involved would have been shot.

aafitz: what does your question of a white judge have to do with anything? you somehow equate religion with skin color?

BigBallinStalin wrote:WHat if the judge was a Christian, the harasser a Mennonite, and the offender was a homeless man?

What then, CC? What then?

A Mennonite would not have done that, sorry. not if they truly were a Mennonite.

the carpet man wrote:aafitz: what does your question of a white judge have to do with anything? you somehow equate religion with skin color?

welcome to the progressive mind

I think people who are obsessed with race to the point where it is all they see and it is the filter by which all they think qualify as racists.

Phatscotty wrote:

AAFitz wrote:This sucks. There's no way a white judge would ever throw out a case against a white man. I bet there isnt one example of it anywhere at any time.

SOMETHING HAS TO CHANGE!!!!

see, they justify it. There is no right or wrong.

I justify nothing.

It is you who are jumping to conclusions. I am only making a comment to show how ridiculous the title of the thread is. If you read more into it than that, as you of course have, and always do, that is your mistake, as it always is.

the carpet man wrote:aafitz: what does your question of a white judge have to do with anything? you somehow equate religion with skin color?

Where do I equate religion to skin color?

AAFitz wrote:Assault is one of the more over used, and most incorrectly used and misunderstood words.

People over using it, as in this case, absolutely know it conjures images of someone being battered, but can very often be nothing more than a threatening conversation. Im hardly suggesting it isnt a crime, however, the crime it seems to insinuate, is usually a completely different charge altogether, and a far more violent and serious one.

Actually, it's not overused. The legal definition for assault is very liberal. A tiny graze (with intent) can be considered assault.

ViperOverLord wrote:

AAFitz wrote:Assault is one of the more over used, and most incorrectly used and misunderstood words.

People over using it, as in this case, absolutely know it conjures images of someone being battered, but can very often be nothing more than a threatening conversation. Im hardly suggesting it isnt a crime, however, the crime it seems to insinuate, is usually a completely different charge altogether, and a far more violent and serious one.

Actually, it's not overused. The legal definition for assault is very liberal. A tiny graze (with intent) can be considered assault.

Well, that's kind of my point. It's used because it elicits a scenario, that is almost always less severe than the word is generally thought to mean. Its used for a more sensational headline, when the words; Dumb guy raises voice at nice guy, is just boring as hell.

I suppose Im partially blaming people for being uneducated as to what the word means, and for news agencies exploiting that ignorance.

AAFitz wrote:

ViperOverLord wrote:

AAFitz wrote:Assault is one of the more over used, and most incorrectly used and misunderstood words.

People over using it, as in this case, absolutely know it conjures images of someone being battered, but can very often be nothing more than a threatening conversation. Im hardly suggesting it isnt a crime, however, the crime it seems to insinuate, is usually a completely different charge altogether, and a far more violent and serious one.

Actually, it's not overused. The legal definition for assault is very liberal. A tiny graze (with intent) can be considered assault.

Well, that's kind of my point. It's used because it elicits a scenario, that is almost always less severe than the word is generally thought to mean. Its used for a more sensational headline, when the words; Dumb guy raises voice at nice guy, is just boring as hell.

I suppose Im partially blaming people for being uneducated as to what the word means, and for news agencies exploiting that ignorance.

I see your point. And I imagine a lot of people are unknowing of the technicalities. I don't blame the news agencies for using the term assault as that's proper reporting. But it's lazy (possibly deceptive) reporting if they're not delving into the nature of the assault.

you said:

AAFitz wrote:This sucks. There's no way a white judge would ever throw out a case against a white man. I bet there isnt one example of it anywhere at any time.

how is this relevant?

or even true. i would bet there are lots of trials where a white judge has thrown out a case in which the defendant was a white man.

'it is bad that a muslim judge would protect this muslim attacker when i bet that white men would not do that'

the carpet man wrote:you said:

AAFitz wrote:This sucks. There's no way a white judge would ever throw out a case against a white man. I bet there isnt one example of it anywhere at any time.

how is this relevant?

or even true. i would bet there are lots of trials where a white judge has thrown out a case in which the defendant was a white man.

'it is bad that a muslim judge would protect this muslim attacker when i bet that white men would not do that'

Sorry for confusing you again.

As far as its relevance, I could explain it for you, but it would be long, tiresome, and you'd still fail to understand.

As far as it being true, I suppose its how you decide to read my statement...clearly I was posting ironically and elusively, and what I actually bet, is that there is not one example, but hundreds of thousands of them.

As far as your last line...I have to admit, given your punctuation and language, you have fully confused me as to your point.