Philadelphia teens beat 72-year-old man to death with traffic cone <<Moderator's Warning>>

I think that's how it was before discrimination laws were in effect.
You had whites who just went to white businesses and didn't allow non whites in.

IMO, if a law restricts the discrimination, that shows the younger generations that discrimination had been a bad idea.
And they see less of it and some will realize that it really wasn't necessary to discriminate.

...
Additionally, we saw higher support for the refusal to serve a gay couple than refusal to serve an interracial couple.
...
The above sentence in your link kind of points to a reason for discrimination laws working at some point in the future.
There was a time when interracial marriages were completely frowned upon. Don't know if they were ever lilegal, but when they started happening, it was as big of an issue as gay marriages.

And per your story, now most don't care if marriages are interracial.
I believe society needs to see if gays can marry, and the world doesn't end, then there's no reason for them not to marry. All the reasons for not allowing them to marry were boogie man type reasons.

 

When you lose any argument about why you need guns, moral or practical, you resort to who said what.
And then attempt to call me a liar. And make up what might please your fantasy.
You really are not worth my time. You run with a mob, you answer for it.
And you wonder why I detest those who attempt to put their case for guns forward.
When they can't answer the questions they go for the ad homs.

Pfffst.

 

The answer is demanding à proper police force and stop the freedom to kill people who would not be killed in due process of law.
It is called vigilanticism, or taking the law into your own hands, or the John Wayne school of law.
Your lack of demand for a proper police force should be your purpose. Not allowing an unelected unaccountable largely secret enormous lobby PAY MONEY to politicians to push their agenda is astonishing. We call it corruption.

 

That’s the fault of the parents, not judges. Parents know how things work, if they don’t want to have kids there are ways to prevent that. We now have oral contraceptives commonly called birth control pills. There are also contraceptive implants. But the most effective means of not impregnating anyone is to hang a picture of Clinton above the bed.

 

And you want these stupid people having more kids?

 

Do I have a say?

 

You could have not voted for all these anti choice politicians

 

I didn’t vote for politicians based on their abortion views. And most of the politicians I voted for lost.

 

More like the fault of Congress for doing absolutely nothing to permanently fix the issue over the last 50 years

 

Anyone would be completely stupid to vote for someone based on their abortion view.

 

I already posted à link to the almost non existent background checks in Texas.

 

Thank you. Exaggeration doesn't help discussion of an issue.

 

Sorry but when a young women alone in her apartment shoots and kills a would be rapist entering her bedroom that is NOT vigilantism. When citizens band together when the police cannot be there to protect their families and property from those who would do them harm that is NOT vigilantism. The police cannot be anywhere and everywhere at all times. But then it IS my side that wants more funding and more police not the Dem/Left/Progressive who want fewer of them and with less ability to arrest and hold criminals. Which side of that are you on?

 

Thanks for sharing your views. To be clear, I’m not necessarily opposed to anti discrimination laws. But I more and more think their time has passed. Most polls and surveys now seem to point to a plateau or even reversal in progress on erasing racism.

I’ve always been of the mind when what you are doing stops being effective or starts making things worse it’s time to look for new solutions.

It would be interesting to do a social experiment and have a few businesses put up discriminatory signs. It would be very easy to find out how much and how fast their business would tank. With all the social media etc. today I’ll bet they would be bankrupt in a week or two on a cash flow basis.

Anyway, I believe we are too addicted to law in this country to ever try anything less authoritarian even if it were more effective. I hope our inability to try new things doesn’t undo all that has been accomplished.

 

I know it's hard. One or two. I have relative with two autistic children....

 

good. Has nothing to do with what I said.

 

I know laws like AA will eventually need to be done with.
But I don't know when that will be. Sometimes I think the time is now, but then I come to a website like this and realize, we may need 1 more generation.

 

I think that it's past time. It's time to just treat people the way they deserve to be treated (good or bad). It's time for people to stand on their accomplishments and not think that someone owes them something. It just reinforces any negative attitudes people have and it's not helpful.

 

I thought it was quite clear that I have been astonished at the lack of professionalism and the poor standards of American police who seem to be more interested in harrassing black people than devising modern way to PREVENT crime. They seem to have given up on mid level crime and assume you would do their job for them.
Which makes it easy to justify having à gun with few controls, allowing almost anyone to have one, including the bad guys and the nutters.
In à civilised place it is the police paid for by the taxpayer which assumes the responsibility for maintaining law and order. Not the individual who is happy to make his own punishment instead of creating deterrents.
The simplistic " solve the problem by applying the ultimate solution" is not acceptable in a civilised country. The punishment should be administered by à judge, not à vigilante.
As adult citizens, you should be demanding far better policing. Not those who wait 77 minutes to move on a terrorist. And this inva state which has virtually no gun control.
There is something seriously wrong.

 

It has to do with the statement that there are already gun control laws.
It shows you that in fact, at least one place has virtually none.

 

glad to hear they are being charged

 

that was not the DA that said that, was gonna say the DA needs to be fired if said that

"Philadelphia-based attorney Rania Major did speak on her clients' behalf."

 

And glad to know the law is being used and that Mr. Lambert didn't use a gun to kill two children.
There are enough children killed by guns already.

 

Denial is your best defense? It's right there for everyone to see. I haven't devolved to the he said/she said, because you are unable to prove your assertion, repeatedly. I don't like liars, but neither did I call you one. Nice try on that, by the by, but if that's the label you choose to wear, then I can't do anything for you.

You believe that no citizen should have guns, because it works in your country. You believe citizens should be monitored by government based CCT, because it works in your country, and you don't have a problem with trading out privacy and freedom, for some false security. You have not posted any type of statistics of LEO to citizen ratios for your country, why not? You claim that there are more then enough LEOs to make sure that no one gets attacked, mugged, sexually assaulted or harmed in anyway, and that LE in this country is deficient and we should raise our taxes..... really?

 

I agree. Let’s try your little experiment.

You know what we will find out? That whites, as a whole, are unwilling to go to the racist white person store that has a sign that says no blacks. But the blacks will FLOCK to the racist black person store with a sign that says no whites.

What do you think? And what does that say about the races?