That is not the case where I come from at all, lil_brown _bat. The State of Texas has passed rigid laws concerning drinking and driving and providing minors with alcohol, and I think it is fair to say that the only people who would treat such an unfortunate accident victim (although, drinking and driving, and it's consequences are not accidents) as a tragic hero would be his/hers immediate family and/or close friends whose judgement could easily be seen to be tainted. And, the same could be said of young Mr. Francis' demise. People ask hard questions anytime someone someone dies in such a senseless manner, at least in my neck of the woods. Bperk, I can not say it enough apparently, that this does not have racial overtones, it is a matter of questioning the judgement of the deceased, regardless of their color, for crying out loud.
Well, I think that it's not a question of calling people here racists - I think it basically comes down to a case of combative perspectives. IMHO, those like mjkredliner are self-described realists, which means that the incidence of black-on-black violence in America (and other places, like Toronto) is common place. It is predictable and therefore the circumstances surrounding the death of Francis are not unique. Therefore, one could say that Francis, undoubtedly aware of this, could have taken steps to prevent his own death. He is of course, in some ways, right. Those like lbb, bperk and I chose have a different perspective. One, while it would be foolish to suggest that black-on-black crime is not pervasive, it would be equally foolish to suggest that victim should share part of the blame, when all we know is that he was simple a victim of a shooting - at a time that is not condusive to safety - at a place none of us seem to know much about. Moreover, I think that the implied problem with events like these, is because of the feeling that being PC is stifling the truth (i.e. that black-on-black crime is not to be discussed in broad terms) people are compelled to "tell it like it is" - or be realists if they chose their own designation. I can appreciate that. But I feel very strongly that this kind of thinking also equates with old ways of thinking about rape victims. Since rape is predictable (1 in 3 women will be sexually assaulted in some capacity in their lives - my sister and mother are no different), we used to feel that occassionally the victim has to accept some of the blame. She shouldn't have been there, or in the worse cases - she shouldn't have been wearing that, or acting provocatively. Most progressive individuals now know this for what it is - wrong, unfair and unjust. The example extrapolates for me like this: Since Francis is young, black and from a poor background, he shouldn't have carried on with his friends, and he shouldn't have been out at that time of night- why? Because he might get shot. Really this is the same as the analogy of the rape victim. We expect Francis to do things that we ourselves do not - not be with his friends on the weekend having fun, and to accept some responsibility for being shot despite doing nothing wrong. He should abandon the same freedoms that we have, as women should to avoid being assaulted because that's the easy way of compartmentalizing these things. This is not acceptable thinking for rape victims, and as far as I'm concerned not acceptable reasoning for Francis being shot. What you call realism, I call blaming the victim in an unjust way. And maybe, in a small but real way, contributing to the same kind of thinking that kept rape vicitms from getting justice for a long time.
I don't think anyone's trying to shut down speculation, but I also think that one might want to temper it a little bit. In my life, rare is the evening that ends after 2 a.m., but I'm wondering what's an acceptable time to get shot. Is 1 a.m better? Midnight? 11 p.m.? 10 p.m.? 9 p.m.? You tell me. Far as I know, any of those times are going to be too late to be "running the streets" depending on who you're talking to. As for Hugh's comment, I'm wondering where his info is coming from in terms of differing characterizations.
What part of "regardless of color" do you all not understand?
But colour has everything to do with this. If you're talking about predicting outcomes as the victim, then of course colour is involved. One is about five times more likely to be shot if one is black than white. One is more likely to be shot in poorer neighbourhoods than wealthy ones. You wouldn't be worried about a 19-year old blasting around Scarsdale at 3 AM - he probably won't get shot (maybe if he's driving an American car). If you want to assign responbility to the victim, then be responsible about why. Colour has lots to do with this.
We understand that we're reading words, MJK. Those come cheap, we've been told.
As for Hugh's comment, I'm wondering where his info is coming from in terms of differing characterizations. I'm not sure I understand what you're asking. I'm on about a specific fallacy in the argument: that while young black murder victims are automatically treated as suspects, young white drunk drivers are routinely hailed as fallen heroes by the knee-jerkerati. I don't buy it and I don't think it helps shed light on the subject; I do, however, think it confuses a real issue. Young black victims are treated as suspects by many folks, regardless of color. It's just needlessly contentious and false to whip out the double standard argument in this case, and I think it hurts more than it helps.
Are you specifically criticizing the drunken drivers part or the fallen heroes part? Or are you criticizing a general statement about differing treatment between white and minority victims?
middle-class kid who drives too fast and/or drinks and drives and ends up dead is treated as a tragic hero. No they are not a hero, it is an unnecessary death. There was a boy in my hometown who was killed because he was driving to fast. Everyone wanted to know how fast he was going and noone made him a hero but they did use him as an example of why you shouldn't drive so fast. Did he deserve to die, NO but he did and maybe someone can learn from this experience. By the way, he was white. My nephew is 20/white and is always out till wee hours of the morning. I worry about the things that could happen to him and tell him all the time it is stupid to be out causing a ruckus at 3:00 in the morning. I pray it doesn't happen but if something were to happen it would be a senseless tragedy that could have been avoided. Also if a soccer mom was out at 3:00am and gets shot I would be asking the same question. What were they doing out at that time. I think people are only asking questions to get more facts not put any less of importance on this tragic death. If the facts were given and the questions were answered maybe I could use this tragedy to help my children avoid a tragedy.
So do opinions, jackhererra.
MJK -- As you've so ably proven. Thx. Hugh -- Sad to say, treatment is going to be different, whether you choose to believe it or not. Occasionally, something like the Duke case comes along -- a Muffaletta sandwich of pathos from all angles -- and you happen to have an alleged black victim. But for the most part, black victims -- of kidnapping, of rape, of murder -- are not regular staples of your average daily metro paper beyond the police blotter page. Until proven otherwise, the immediate assumption, particularly in places with high murder rates, is that the victim put his or herself in jeopardy. In contrast, we're not only familiar with Missing White Woman syndrome, but also people who simply pulled the okee-doke on us, like Susan Smith, Andrea Yates, and the woman who simply wanted to pull out of her wedding. In most cases, the best is assumed until proven otherwise. I don't necessarily think that a drunk driving fatality is the best example (though I don't think we're talking fantasy with LBB's scenario) of disparities in perception, but they do exist.
What is it about idealism that causes one to try to put words in another's mouth, and to read things into another's written word that were not implied? I am not looking to cast blame, I am MERELY WONDERING IF IT COULD HAVE BEEN AVOIDED!!! It is a little late for blame to assigned, the deed is done and young Mr. Francis is with us no more, but PERHAPS IF A LESSON IS TO BE LEARNED, THEN THE MISTAKES WILL NOT BE REPEATED BY ANOTHER YOUNG PERSON WHO HAS THE ABILITY TO CHANGE THEIR LIFE WHILE THEY STILL CAN!!! What is so difficult to comprehend about that? And, I must say, that many valid points have been made, but ease up a little bit on inferring that I am racist, I assure you that nothing is further from the truth. Insensitive, well, guilty as charged. But not racist.
Hugh, I wish I had made up my hypothetical "out of whole cloth", but I didn't. It's prom season, and it happens every year, and it will happen this year too. I've seen it too many times. Perhaps my neck of the woods -- New England -- is an anomaly in the world, and everywhere else, when a teenager dies doing something stupid, their friends say, "Wow, that was stupid," rather than hold vigils and wakes and make roadside shrines and talk with high drama about what a great person the deceased was. I'm a most-days reader of the Boston Globe, and the first time I can recall somebody -- anybody -- really calling a spade a spade was last year when columnist Bella English said (paraphrased and much boiled down), "You know, these deaths are tragic, but we gotta stop acting like these deaths are caused by a bolt from the blue, and start recognizing where the responsibility lies." Again, I really wish I were wrong about this one, but I'm not. It's a particular kind of destructive behavior that, not everywhere, but all too often, seems to get a pass, or at least a partial pass.
Whatever label you want to put on it, I don't think that MJK means any harm and I'm willing to move on to other matters. (How idealist of me!) Is it fair to wonder what the kid was doing out at 3:30 a.m.? Overall, there are greater sins than to ask that question, so long as one is willing to question one's self for asking it. Is it the right question? I'm not sure. It's probably not out of the realm of possibility that it will be discussed throughout the very pews where his wake will be held. But it's more of a judgement than something that answers anything. I think the question of what led up to it (posed during this thread) is a far better one. Unfortunately, there's no real answer to that one yet, but it's also the one -- fueled by assumptions -- that's providing most of the heat to this discussion.
If he had been shot at five in the afternoon would we be asking what he was doing out then or just saying that it was circumstance?
Hugh, I get what you're saying, but what I think lbb is saying (not that I'm speaking for anyone) is more that suburban drunk driving deaths get treated as tragedies and the deceased is never blamed for something that is their fault. When I was in prep school, we had 3 kids get hurt and 1 die in a prom night crash. The funeral will stay with me forever: a few hundred boys and family in this room remembering someone who was loved, singing the Grateful Dead's Ripple accompanied by just acoustic guitars. It was a beautiful memorial. The fund founded in his name has better than $600,000 in it as of last fiscal year. He died in a drunk driving accident. Perhaps if Stalin were alive today he would say the death of the rich man is a tragedy. The death of the poor man is a statistic.
The thing you have to realize is young guys who grow up in the city understand if you are going to start any type of problem on the streets unnecessarily, the person you're messing with runs a good chance of pulling out a gun and putting bullets in you. I (a white male) worked with a inner-city, college basketball team several years back, and one night, after a game, myself and several of the players (yes, they all were black (just a fact)) were sitting in a car after being out, still drinking a few beers and partying, when another vehicle drove slowly by. Well, stupid asshole me decides to make a few gestures towards this vehicle, and the other guys in the car I was in just flipped out. They were instantly worried the guy(s) in the other vehicle may have guns and would possibly, or likely, come back and open up on us. Like it or not, that's the way life goes in the city, especially after hours. That's why, several dozen posts ago I said I wanted to know if Francis' car (maybe his friends, not him) started something, perhaps minor, with someone, and it just turns out it (obviously) wasn't someone they should have messed with. That type of thing is more common than we'd like to admit in many city neighborhoods, and it's the kids who grow up in those cities who understand the risks. I'll be interested to see what becomes of this investigation. I'm absolutely sure it will turn up nothing that could justify taking the life of a 19-year old, but most murders are senseless.
If he had been shot at five in the afternoon would we be asking what he was doing out then or just saying that it was circumstance? Uh, no. We wouldn't be asking what he was doing out then. Perhaps my neck of the woods -- New England -- is an anomaly in the world, and everywhere else, when a teenager dies doing something stupid, their friends say, "Wow, that was stupid," rather than hold vigils and wakes and make roadside shrines and talk with high drama about what a great person the deceased was. I have no idea what you are talking about. In New England, people hold vigils for those who have killed others? In other parts of "the world," if you are driving a car and do something stupid, which results in the deaths of your passengers...you go to jail.
Wish the story had some more details. For example what was Francis doing out at 3:30 am riding around? Or was his death provoked? posted by T$PORT4lawschool at 4:47 PM CDT on May 13 This is what started the discussion into the direction that it took. My comment was, if the story was about a family member vs. a young black athlete, you'd be less likely to ask this question or make the following remark, "or was his death provoked". To me that question is more offensive than, "what was he doing out so late". No one asked the prior question of the kids at columbine. No one asked this of the victims of the DC sniper (which is a far tougher place than the one in question IMO) But since it was a young black athlete cruising in his "hood", Some can't help but wonder "if he provoked his own death". If you're a young black male, that's a slap in the face no matter how you phrase it. If you're not a young black male, you can never truly understand why that thinking is offensive.
If you're not a young black male, you can never truly understand why that thinking is offensive. Ah yes, the ol' It's a Black Thing, You Wouldn't Understand line of reasoning. That certainly helps the issue at hand. You're wrong, Bishop. Skin color has nothing to do with understanding offensive speech. Statements like the one you just made are no less divisive than "what was he doing out on the streets at 3am?"
If you're a young black male, that's a slap in the face no matter how you phrase it. If a white kid in my neighborhood is gunned down by a guy who pulls up in his car and opens fire, I'd soon be asking what may have triggered the shooting. It's a natural question. I've heard of many killings over the years and I've automatically wondered, Why? There are very few random, just-for-the-thrill-of-it killings. And this is not to imply that whatever reason this gunman had for this killing is justifiable in any way. You just want to know the events prior. Asking what may have happened shouldn't always be twisted to mean "How did the victim provoke it." The word "Provoke" is the misleading term. I'd just like to read a timeline of events from earlier in the evening regarding these guys prior to the shooting.
I have no idea what you are talking about. That's been evident for some time. Having repeatedly explained myself, I decline to do so further. You and one other person have claimed that teenagers who do blatantly irresponsible things and get themselves killed are never looked at with sympathy rather than condemnation where you live. Rather than dispute the nature of your Smallville, I'll take your word for it, and you might want to do the same with me.
You're wrong, Bishop. Skin color has nothing to do with understanding offensive speech. Being on the receiving end has a lot to do with such understanding, however...and skin color can have a lot to do with being on the receiving end. That's not to say that young black men are the only people who get targeted with offensive speech; OTOH, there's a difference between speech that is offensive, and speech that is both offensive and oppressive. A young black man can call George W. Bush a honky all he wants, but he has zero power to affect George W. Bush's life, whereas the reverse is not true. IOW, it's not all about name-calling, it's about name-calling with power behind it...and there, I suspect, it is pretty hard to get it if you haven't lived it in some form.
Being on the receiving end is certainly one way to gain an understanding of offensive speech, but it isn't the only way. Plenty of people can understand the cultural context and impact without themselves having been victimized. If you follow the "you've never been a victim, so you can't understand" argument, you give a complete bye to those people who refuse to acknowledge the cultural context of this offensive speech. If you haven't been victimized by speech, you should still be able to understand why suggesting that Francis' murder might have been provoked is offensive.
Jiminy Christmas. Any chance we can stop reading so much ill will into what other people are saying? It's tough to have an honest dialogue when people infer so much from comments, as if we're all seething bigots who are about to slip up and reveal ourselves. Francis appears to have died because he took a ride home from somebody who had a beef with the wrong guy, perhaps after a road alercation. Personally, whenever I encounter hostility from another driver, I back off because the other guy might be an imbecile with a gun and I don't need to prove my manliness with my car. I know I shouldn't think this -- since I'm neither young nor black, and people like me believe we're immune from crime.
rcade, you had me until this point: I know I shouldn't think this -- since I'm neither young nor black, and people like me believe we're immune from crime. For a guy who's making an appeal for "honest dialogue", you sure know how to sabotage yourself. YOu were doing fine until you got to this throwaway polarizing remark. Your points were much better off without it. Other than that, jiminy christmas, I'm inclined to agree with you, only I'd like to point out that I and a couple of others had veered off into a side discussion that really had nothing to do with who's a seething bigot; rather, it was more about what experiences and perspective make it possible to understand offensive/oppressive speech. Call it a digression of a digression, if you will, but it ain't calling anyone a seething bigot.
So, does this exonerate Francis, rcade? Should he not have been out that late and in the car? Can we now safely suggest that he did nothing wrong? I resent people suggesting that Francis made a mistake that the rest of us wouldn't. He was just in the wrong place at the wrong time it now seems. Sad. I thought this discussion was actually quite civil given it's explosive content. I didn't see too many instances of bigotry. Just people who are very comfortable with how they organize a rationality or reason for this event.
We don't know that much about the altercation, Weedy. I'm curious to hear what the driver and the other passengers of those cars say about the incident. Your resentment, given the way people here have tiptoed around the question of whether Francis might have been in any way at fault, seems a bit overblown to me.
For a guy who's making an appeal for "honest dialogue", you sure know how to sabotage yourself. YOu were doing fine until you got to this throwaway polarizing remark. Your points were much better off without it. Maybe. But it's tough to get past the self-perception "I am a unique individual who is fair-minded in my approach to life; you are a knee-jerk reactionary stereotype." The meta-discussion here was certainly one of the more interesting blowups on SportsFilter recently. Especially since race became an issue, and that has become a recipe for disaster.
I liked it better the way Brad Pitt's character said it.
Your resentment, given the way people here have tiptoed around the question of whether Francis might have been in any way at fault, seems a bit overblown to me. Ah, wouldn't be the first time.
The meta-discussion here was certainly one of the more interesting blowups on SportsFilter recently. Especially since race became an issue, and that has become a recipe for disaster. Some people blew up; not everybody did. I don't think I'd characterize the meta-discussion as a "blowup". Rather, I think it was wondering about our reactions to bad stuff happening, and where we feel different deaths lie on the forseeable-and-preventable vs. bolt-from-the-blue spectrum...and whether our perceptions really mesh with reality. The question was also raised as to how much responsibility a victim has for avoiding a preventable crime, and at what point do we concur that the victim was only doing what others have every expectation of doing without being victimized: for example, the case of a woman who simply wants to go for a walk alone after dark. One person, I'd say, blew up, but there was a lot more to it than that.
Wow, this discussion exploded since my last comment. I will reiterate what I said then since it clearly still applies. When the discussion started, nobody said he was asking for it by driving that late. Nobody said he was black and therefore a victim of what he had done. The point of asking questions was to not instantly assume anyone's guilt, but rather try to discover reasoning for what took place. The 3:00 AM question was merely an example of things we should be asking, with the latter question, "was his death provoked?" being the ultimate aim. It is key to note that that question should not be only one asked but rather be part of an array. As the Irish saying goes, "Questioning is the door of knowledge."
FTR, it appears that the shooter did have a beef with the driver, but Francis had nothing to do with the conflict. Basically, Francis got shot as the driver tried to get away. As for the nature of the conflict, or whether the driver was a "tough", that's still unclear.
I still contend that the point I'm making is clear. The question, "was his death provoked" is asked why? You want to know if he brought it on himself, the thinking is, wait....before i feel sorry for him or consider this a tragedy, let me make sure this kid didn't do something worthy of being killed. If that's not it, what else could it mean? Let us not forget the white guy who shot his own wife sitting in their car, then said, "we were in a "bad neighborhood" and we got robbed by a black guy. Instantly you feel sympathy for the victims. Nobody asks, I wonder if they provoked the guy who shot her. To the contrary, your more likely to think the alleged assailant is a piece of shit scum bag. Sure not everyone thinks this way, but a lot of people do. Turns out he did it himself. Or how about the teenage white girl victim missing for all that time, turns out she was with those people willingly. Needless to mention the woman who claimed the black guy took her kids, turns out she drove them into a lake. No one's first thought was "I wonder what she did to provoke the black guy". Some people are more likely than others to be thought of as victims in this country. So when those who are less likely to be thought of as innocent victims get a little offended, the only argument is to simply contend that the previous statement is not true. If you take the following comment, If you're a young black male, that's a slap in the face no matter how you phrase it. If you're not a young black male, you can never truly understand why that thinking is offensive and all you get is, Ah yes, the ol' It's a Black Thing, You Wouldn't Understand line of reasoning. That certainly helps the issue at hand. You're wrong, Bishop. Skin color has nothing to do with understanding offensive speech. Statements like the one you just made are no less divisive than "what was he doing out on the streets at 3am Instead of trying to see something from a different perspective, you attempt turn it into something meaningless, thus missing the point entirely. Which is common when it comes to topics like this. If this discussion was, let's say, about your mother getting shot at Saks, I think you would feel differently. I also think we would not be having this discussion about whether or not she provoked it.
Q: What were Charles stuart's last words after he jumped off the Tobin Bridge? A: "A black man pushed me." Skip it if you weren't there. It wasn't really funny even if you were.
After much thought and re-reading every comment, I have decided that those of you who read something evil or bigoted into asking "what was he doing there?" or "at that time?" cannot see the forest for the trees. What do you think the first thing his mother asked was?
What do you think the first thing his mother asked was NOT, I wonder if he did something to cause this. You can be damn sure of that. She didn't say, damn him, I told him not to ride with ray ray and them because I knew he had beef with june bug. Her precious child is gone, and nobody here can write anything that would help her comprehend that. Regardless of fault, cause, or whatever else you might want to argue to show there may have been a justifiable reason why he was shot in the back by someone emptying a clip into a car that was leaving the scene. After much thought and re-reading every comment, I have decided that those of you who read something evil or bigoted into asking "what was he doing there The subject being discussed is the statement, "was the shooting provoked"and the context in which it was asked. Forget about the "what was he doing there" BS. If the story was about JJ Redick, there would hardly be that "I wonder what he was up to mentality". This was traggic in my opinion. You may think otherwise. Obviously some here agree, some disagree, leave it at that.
No, I think she probably asked, "what was he doing out there so late" and wondered if it could have been avoided. Which is not asking if he did something to cause it. And why would we not ask the same of JJ Redick? Simply because he is white? That is stupid, and incorrect, pal. I most certainly would ask the same question. Your attempt to turn this into a racial issue holds no water. Read the above comments and see who mentioned race first, the (obviously) bleeding heart liberals who feel that they are holier than thou and need to make a simple, perfectly logical question iinto a matter of race andor social status.
I still contend that the point I'm making is clear. The question, "was his death provoked" is asked why? You want to know if he brought it on himself, the thinking is, wait....before i feel sorry for him or consider this a tragedy, let me make sure this kid didn't do something worthy of being killed. You say that like it's a bad thing. Mike Bastianelli and Darrell Russell, two other athlete with USC ties, died recently when Bastianelli was driving his car so fast and erratically that he hit a curb, two trees, newsstand, fire hydrant, light pole and a bus. Should I feel nothing but sympathy for Bastianelli, or am I allowed to question why he was driving so recklessly that he killed two people and could have easily killed more?
The difference here is that you had no evidence whatsoever to lead you to believe that he might have been at fault. But, that didn't stop folks from speculating. There was evidence that he was a good kid who didn't get any trouble. And, even after more information has come out that reinforces that he was not at fault, people persist down that path. And, mjk, regardless of whether you think race is involved or who mentioned it, you are not the sole arbiter of whether this is a racial issue or not. There is no point in trying to take the cultural context out of this conversation. And, fyi, no one called anyone a bigot. Accusing people of that is a conversation killer just as much as actually calling someone names is. I have no difficulty understanding what you are saying -- you would ask that question of anyone dying in this way. Fine. But, people have repeatedly told you why they feel differently. I think we can agree to disagree at this point if you can at least understand the point that many of us are trying to make. Can you see why some of us think that asking those questions in this context is offensive?
The difference here is that you had no evidence whatsoever to lead you to believe that he might have been at fault. But, that didn't stop folks from speculating. New to the Internet, Bperk? There was evidence that he was a good kid who didn't get any trouble. So you'll accept speculation that suggests he's a good kid but won't tolerate any attempt to ask questions that might show otherwise. Neat trick.
So you'll accept speculation that suggests he's a good kid but won't tolerate any attempt to ask questions that might show otherwise. The people who know him like the coach and teammates said he was a good kid. No one who knew him has said otherwise. That is why I find this whole thing mind-boggling. If you know something that gives you any basis whatsoever to suggest that he was anything but a good kid that people have said he is, then please share it. But, don't talk like we are doing the same thing. You guys without any evidence are speculating that he might have provoked his death. What others of us are saying is that there is no evidence to support that and such speculation is offensive. Please give me one shred of facts to support your position. There are tons of quotes about how he was a great kid. Your own link earlier indicates that he was in the wrong place at the wrong time. I just have no idea why you think at this point that your speculation is anything but complete and utterly baseless.
Show me a single example of "complete and utterly baseless" speculation I've posted in this discussion, Bperk. From my first comment on, I've made clear that I think it sounds like a wrong place at the wrong time situation. I wrote that "the shooting followed a prior altercation between the shooter and the driver of Francis' car" and "Francis sounds like he was a well-behaved athlete who doted on his mother and didn't get into any trouble."
The type of speculation I was referring to was your Bastianelle and Russell analogy, the nothing good happens at 3 am, your personal advice as to how you handle angry drivers (and presumably would have handled this situation), and the wait-and-see approach to what the driver and passengers had to say before "exonerating" Francis.
I'd just like to clarify that "what was Francis doing out at 3:30 am riding around?"does not translate to "nothing good happens at 3 am," nor does "was his death provoked?" translate to "[did] he [bring] it on himself?" In creating those relationships, you are doing exactly what is being preached against: speculating intent.
It's impossible to hold a conversation with someone who thinks everything you say is motivated by malicious intent. I haven't said anything here that's nearly as speculative as the truckload of bullshit you attributed to me with this remark: "If a soccer mom gets shot, I bet you first assume it is a tragedy until you have further information. But, this young, black man gets shot, he probably did something stupid to deserve it -- hanging out with his thug friends." Because of course, I'm a racist asshole who thinks all young black men are thugs! I also hate Jews and Catholics! And immigrants! If you climb any further up my ass, I'm going to charge you rent. My end of this conversation is over.
It's not me that is getting crazy in this discussion. You folks on the okay-to-question side of this argument kept using the word bigoted when no one else did. In addition, I was accused of calling someone a racist when I didn't. I also tried to agree to disagree without much success. Now, you are able to discern exactly what I think. All that to say, I am fine with leaving this where it is.
rcade: A few questions... Do you rent to Lutherans? Are sub leases okay? Do you charge more for pets? Just wondering, I'm kinda in between asses right now.
A few questions... Do you rent to Lutherans? Are sub leases okay? Do you charge more for pets? Just wondering, I'm kinda in between asses right now. tselson.....you owe me a new keyboard.
nor does "was his death provoked?" translate to "[did] he [bring] it on himself?" For example what was Francis doing out at 3:30 am riding around? Or was his death provoked? What clues do you think the writer is searching for here? We can agree that he is looking for more information, but what type of information? My point is, these types of questions are not normally asked of all victims at the onset of bad news. Sure they may pop up eventually, but in all cases it would not be the first thing on a persons mind. If you can't see this perspective it's because you choose not to look at it, and no words written here would help to open your eyes. This Sean Hannity technique of force your opinions into peoples minds until they accept it or give up on getting their point across only further demonstrates your lack of compromise and over eagerness to be considered right at all times. God made night and day, black and white and a whole bunch of things in between for normal folks that understand that sometimes there is a gray area. Your comment was deleted because calling another user a "dumbass" is flamebait. posted by rcade at 6:19 AM CDT on May 15 bleeding heart liberals who feel that they are holier than thou That is stupid If you climb any further up my ass, I'm going to charge you rent Rcade, certain forms of name calling are acceptable? I called someone a dumb ass in the heat of making my opinion known. I made a mistake. However since there is a person who tends to have the same opinion as you, the name calling is acceptable. Double standard man, your final comment is much less offensive than calling someone a dumb ass, actually it's nothing but flamebait.
I'm kinda in between asses right now. I don't appreciate that crack.
I made a mistake. However since there is a person who tends to have the same opinion as you, the name calling is acceptable. Y'know, comparing people in the thread to Sean Hannity probably isn't helping your point here.
However since there is a person who tends to have the same opinion as you, the name calling is acceptable. Are you accusing me of being more lenient on myself than I would be to other people? It's hard for me to dispute that. I banned myself from another site that I admin once. Best weekend of my life. Nothing good can happen when you say "nothing good can happen when you're out at 3 a.m."
I'm totally calling you on that remark. Seems fraught with meaning.
Bishop, I could certainly make a reasonable argument that self-reflection with your comments would be beneficial to you. My point is, these types of questions are not normally asked of all victims at the onset of bad news. Sure they may pop up eventually, but in all cases it would not be the first thing on a persons mind. If you can't see this perspective it's because you choose not to look at it, and no words written here would help to open your eyes. I have no relationship to the victim and was not even aware of his skin color/background/etc. when I read the article (the article does not mention any of those factors). Nor did I care about them. Yet yes, that was my first reaction. The only thing the article disclosed were the then-available circumstances. I am not even sure what you are claiming me to be imposing on you other than perhaps to not have you speculate intent without any substance; and, as a religious man, I am sure ther
