real racism

[USFREEDOM911]

See above responses. Freedumb has earned his nickname....I leave him to do exactly what I predicted earlier and repeat it ad nauseum.

I see that you still jump, when I pull the strings.
Proof that you are my bitch.

 

[Timshel]

Spare me your bullhorn and BS, String. I noticed how you ignored my example that put your earlier assertion to rest. Seems you just can't concede a point that interferes with your beliefs, you you just keep repeating the SOS in various forms while ignoring how they are logically deconstructed. In short, you're just being stubborn to the point of insipidness.

What example did I Ignore? One more example of my own to prove the point. If he had given failing grades to all the black kids based on their failure as a group, would that have been singling them out based on race or based on poor performance?

WRONG. ESTABLISHING INTENT IS PART OF THE TRIAL PROCESS, AND IS REQUIRED OF BOTH PROSECUTION AND DEFENSE. REMEMBER, IN AMERICAN LEGAL SYSTEM, ONE IS INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY.

You are mixing and dropping contexts. I used intent previously to mean what was the intended result of his actions or what was the motivation for his actions. That is, I agree he had no ill intent.

That's not intent in the legal context, but motive. Intent, in the legal context simply means that the action was not an accident. He intended to create the group. Intent is established. His motives, however good they may have been, don't change the fact he violated the law and school board policy.

Proof of motive IS NOT required for conviction, though it certainly can help in certain cases.

WRONG AGAIN. Your flawed analogy is based upon your incorrect application to the wrong example. Being caught stealing a car requires proving if the accused did indeed steal the car, NOT his intentions. Extenuating or exceptional circumstances come into play AFTER it's been established that the accused did indeed steal said car. Proving INTENT comes up in such cases as to what degree of murder is being charged, and if the prosecution can convict based on evidence regarding intent, or the defense can change the degree of conviction via intent (murder in the 1st, 2nd or 3rd degree).

No, you are dropping and mixing contexts.

Motive - An idea, belief, or emotion that impels a person to act in accordance with that state of mind.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/motive

Intent - A determination to perform a particular act or to act in a particular manner for a specific reason; an aim or design; a resolution to use a certain means to reach an end.

Intent is a mental attitude with which an individual acts, and therefore it cannot ordinarily be directly proved but must be inferred from surrounding facts and circumstances. Intent refers only to the state of mind with which the act is done or omitted. It differs from motive, which is what prompts a person to act or to fail to act. For example, suppose Billy calls Amy names and Amy throws a snowball at him. Amy's intent is to hit Billy with a snowball. Her motive may be to stop Billy's taunts.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/intent

Not quite....you are STILL trying to state that the very creation of the lunch brunch was "racist" by it's very design. As I've logically demonstrated, that is not the case. It's the fine details that you want to have sway with...but you don't have a logical foot to stand on. The final ruling DOES NOT support your displayed contentions 100%....THAT is why you keep repeating yourself, and why you ignore the facts and logic that just won't support your assertions and contentions. I never said you were calling for the man's head but as the saying goes, the devil is in the details when one reads your statements.

No, I said it's effects are racist. It is a waste of time for black students that are not failing.

The school board agrees with me, not you. They did not say that the action complied with the law or policy. Are they not examples of "cooler heads" now?

No, my condescendingly chuckling friend, I just pointed out that your comparison was wrong, given the circumstances and the FACTS of each separate case. Rather than concede that small point, you invent another question to detract from your error.

There was no error on my part. My point was that his motives (I will use that so you won't mix context again) is not relevant to whether he broke the law. He could have done it with the motives I mentioned and would have still been in violation of the law.

Baloney....you continually try to insert your personal beliefs into what has transpired. And as I've stated above, the evidence and final ruling DO NOT support parts of your assertions.

Where? Where have I have I said that I do not believe his stated motivation? Where does the ruling disagree with me?

We're NOT in full agreement...and I suspect we never will be, as the chronology of the posts demonstrates. I'm going to leave it at that and move on.

Okay, then do you not believe his motives or do you not believe the group violated the law and school board policy?

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

what up white boy

 

[Taichiliberal]

For those interested in EXACTLY what transpired earlier:

http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showpost.php?p=654934&postcount=475

And now, lets continue:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Spare me your bullhorn and BS, String. I noticed how you ignored my example that put your earlier assertion to rest. Seems you just can't concede a point that interferes with your beliefs, you you just keep repeating the SOS in various forms while ignoring how they are logically deconstructed. In short, you're just being stubborn to the point of insipidness.

What example did I Ignore? One more example of my own to prove the point. If he had given failing grades to all the black kids based on their failure as a group, would that have been singling them out based on race or based on poor performance?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
WRONG. ESTABLISHING INTENT IS PART OF THE TRIAL PROCESS, AND IS REQUIRED OF BOTH PROSECUTION AND DEFENSE. REMEMBER, IN AMERICAN LEGAL SYSTEM, ONE IS INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY.

You are mixing and dropping contexts. I used intent previously to mean what was the intended result of his actions or what was the motivation for his actions. That is, I agree he had no ill intent.

That's not intent in the legal context, but motive. Intent, in the legal context simply means that the action was not an accident. He intended to create the group. Intent is established. His motives, however good they may have been, don't change the fact he violated the law and school board policy.

Proof of motive IS NOT required for conviction, though it certainly can help in certain cases.

Quote:
WRONG AGAIN. Your flawed analogy is based upon your incorrect application to the wrong example. Being caught stealing a car requires proving if the accused did indeed steal the car, NOT his intentions. Extenuating or exceptional circumstances come into play AFTER it's been established that the accused did indeed steal said car. Proving INTENT comes up in such cases as to what degree of murder is being charged, and if the prosecution can convict based on evidence regarding intent, or the defense can change the degree of conviction via intent (murder in the 1st, 2nd or 3rd degree).

No, you are dropping and mixing contexts.

Motive - An idea, belief, or emotion that impels a person to act in accordance with that state of mind.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/motive

Intent - A determination to perform a particular act or to act in a particular manner for a specific reason; an aim or design; a resolution to use a certain means to reach an end.

Intent is a mental attitude with which an individual acts, and therefore it cannot ordinarily be directly proved but must be inferred from surrounding facts and circumstances. Intent refers only to the state of mind with which the act is done or omitted. It differs from motive, which is what prompts a person to act or to fail to act. For example, suppose Billy calls Amy names and Amy throws a snowball at him. Amy's intent is to hit Billy with a snowball. Her motive may be to stop Billy's taunts.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/intent

Quote:
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Not quite....you are STILL trying to state that the very creation of the lunch brunch was "racist" by it's very design. As I've logically demonstrated, that is not the case. It's the fine details that you want to have sway with...but you don't have a logical foot to stand on. The final ruling DOES NOT support your displayed contentions 100%....THAT is why you keep repeating yourself, and why you ignore the facts and logic that just won't support your assertions and contentions. I never said you were calling for the man's head but as the saying goes, the devil is in the details when one reads your statements.

No, I said it's effects are racist. It is a waste of time for black students that are not failing.

The school board agrees with me, not you. They did not say that the action complied with the law or policy. Are they not examples of "cooler heads" now?

Quote:
No, my condescendingly chuckling friend, I just pointed out that your comparison was wrong, given the circumstances and the FACTS of each separate case. Rather than concede that small point, you invent another question to detract from your error.

There was no error on my part. My point was that his motives (I will use that so you won't mix context again) is not relevant to whether he broke the law. He could have done it with the motives I mentioned and would have still been in violation of the law.

Quote:
Baloney....you continually try to insert your personal beliefs into what has transpired. And as I've stated above, the evidence and final ruling DO NOT support parts of your assertions.

Where? Where have I have I said that I do not believe his stated motivation? Where does the ruling disagree with me?

Quote:
We're NOT in full agreement...and I suspect we never will be, as the chronology of the posts demonstrates. I'm going to leave it at that and move on.

Okay, then do you not believe his motives or do you not believe the group violated the law and school board policy?

 

[Taichiliberal]

For those interested in EXACTLY what transpired earlier:

http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showpost.php?p=654934&postcount=475

And now, lets continue:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Spare me your bullhorn and BS, String. I noticed how you ignored my example that put your earlier assertion to rest. Seems you just can't concede a point that interferes with your beliefs, you you just keep repeating the SOS in various forms while ignoring how they are logically deconstructed. In short, you're just being stubborn to the point of insipidness.

What example did I Ignore? One more example of my own to prove the point. If he had given failing grades to all the black kids based on their failure as a group, would that have been singling them out based on race or based on poor performance?


You're just repeating the SOS in various forms...again No, the "white" kids weren't failing as a group in comparison to the black kids according to the test scores. Why in the hell would you include kids who weren't failing with a group that is failing an needs remedial work? Your question makes no sense because YOU are CREATING a situation that DID NOT EXIST. You do this to avoid the reality of what actually happened and how it does not jibe with your assertions. Again, the black kids were failing 'en masse' as opposed to just part of the general population, that would indicate a common problem that would have to be addressed. How that problem was addressed created a new problem...and I've addressed all that in detail.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
WRONG. ESTABLISHING INTENT IS PART OF THE TRIAL PROCESS, AND IS REQUIRED OF BOTH PROSECUTION AND DEFENSE. REMEMBER, IN AMERICAN LEGAL SYSTEM, ONE IS INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY.

You are mixing and dropping contexts. I used intent previously to mean what was the intended result of his actions or what was the motivation for his actions. That is, I agree he had no ill intent.

I "mix and drop" nothing, as the chronology of the posts shows I am responding DIRECTLY to what you profess is accurate in relation to the situation. You NOW say that you agree the principle had no ill intent...that's what the final ruling said....BUT you keep asserting that the lunch bunch was created by racially bias intent regardless of test scores...and that is NOT the case. You can't put the cart before the horse here....the scores dictated the action, however wrong headed the action was.


That's not intent in the legal context, but motive. Intent, in the legal context simply means that the action was not an accident. He intended to create the group. Intent is established. His motives, however good they may have been, don't change the fact he violated the law and school board policy.

Proof of motive IS NOT required for conviction, though it certainly can help in certain cases.

Nice try, but as the chronology of the post shows, it was YOU who keep alluding to the very creation of the lunch bunch as racist, which is wasn't. The "motive" was the test score, the "intent" was to correct the situation for the group identified by the test scores. Also, if you cannot prove motive, you sure as hell are going to have a tough time trying to convict someone of a crime in some cases. "Intent" is after you've established guilt via evidence and proved motive..but all come before the final verdict.

Quote:
WRONG AGAIN. Your flawed analogy is based upon your incorrect application to the wrong example. Being caught stealing a car requires proving if the accused did indeed steal the car, NOT his intentions. Extenuating or exceptional circumstances come into play AFTER it's been established that the accused did indeed steal said car. Proving INTENT comes up in such cases as to what degree of murder is being charged, and if the prosecution can convict based on evidence regarding intent, or the defense can change the degree of conviction via intent (murder in the 1st, 2nd or 3rd degree).

No, you are dropping and mixing contexts.

Not at all, I'm explaining to you the sequence that occurs during trials...that it doesn't fit into what you perceive should take place is your problem.

Motive - An idea, belief, or emotion that impels a person to act in accordance with that state of mind.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/motive

Intent - A determination to perform a particular act or to act in a particular manner for a specific reason; an aim or design; a resolution to use a certain means to reach an end.

Intent is a mental attitude with which an individual acts, and therefore it cannot ordinarily be directly proved but must be inferred from surrounding facts and circumstances. Intent refers only to the state of mind with which the act is done or omitted. It differs from motive, which is what prompts a person to act or to fail to act. For example, suppose Billy calls Amy names and Amy throws a snowball at him. Amy's intent is to hit Billy with a snowball. Her motive may be to stop Billy's taunts.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/intent

Nice moot points...now let's apply them to reality. You're on trial for murder...the victim died in a bar fight, the "MOTIVE" for you to beat him to death was a bar fight where he took a swing at you...but the "intent" by you was to NOT to kill him, but to keep from getting hit and win the fight. This is why the verdict is the least degree "manslaughter" and not "murder".

Quote:
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Not quite....you are STILL trying to state that the very creation of the lunch brunch was "racist" by it's very design. As I've logically demonstrated, that is not the case. It's the fine details that you want to have sway with...but you don't have a logical foot to stand on. The final ruling DOES NOT support your displayed contentions 100%....THAT is why you keep repeating yourself, and why you ignore the facts and logic that just won't support your assertions and contentions. I never said you were calling for the man's head but as the saying goes, the devil is in the details when one reads your statements.

No, I said it's effects are racist. It is a waste of time for black students that are not failing. Again, your opinion is not fact here, and NOWHERE in the final decision was the term "racist" used.
The school board agrees with me, not you. NOT QUITE, as the chronology of the posts demonstrates. They did not say that the action complied with the law or policy. Are they not examples of "cooler heads" now? Nice try, but as I've demonstrated time and again, the "details" of your personal opinion, suppositions and conjectures are DO NOT pan out when analyzed.

Quote:
No, my condescendingly chuckling friend, I just pointed out that your comparison was wrong, given the circumstances and the FACTS of each separate case. Rather than concede that small point, you invent another question to detract from your error.

There was no error on my part. My point was that his motives (I will use that so you won't mix context again) is not relevant to whether he broke the law. He could have done it with the motives I mentioned and would have still been in violation of the law.

See above responses. Bottom line is that the chronology of the posts shows how you are most insistent in maintaining a label of racism on this incident that just doesn't exist. You try to change the terminology you use in order to support your assertions, but as I've demonstrated, you fail. When all is said and done, YOU want to believe your viewpoint as valid, and will continuously repeat it any way possible. But as I said previously, the devil is in the details, and your details just don't stand up to the light of day.

You have your belief, I have reality..and we both find the final decision of the case satifisfactory. That's it for me here.

Quote:
Baloney....you continually try to insert your personal beliefs into what has transpired. And as I've stated above, the evidence and final ruling DO NOT support parts of your assertions.

Where? Where have I have I said that I do not believe his stated motivation? Where does the ruling disagree with me?

See the above responses.

Quote:
We're NOT in full agreement...and I suspect we never will be, as the chronology of the posts demonstrates. I'm going to leave it at that and move on.

Okay, then do you not believe his motives or do you not believe the group violated the law and school board policy?

See above responses.

 

[NOVA]

God man...Give it a rest....the freakin' repetition is nauseating to me and it must be humiliating for you.....
You've been pwned by about 4 different posters and just say the same crap ad nauseam

 

[Taichiliberal]

God man...Give it a rest....the freakin' repetition is nauseating to me and it must be humiliating for you.....
You've been pwned by about 4 different posters and just say the same crap ad nauseam

That Bravo cannot logically or factually debate an issue before deteriorating into a ignorant and proudly stubborn child has been well documented. That Bravo actually puts stock into the reputation points as a determiner of who is correct in a debate further demonstrates the low level of Bravo's intelligence.

I pity Bravo.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

That Bravo cannot logically or factually debate an issue before deteriorating into a ignorant and proudly stubborn child has been well documented. That Bravo actually puts stock into the reputation points as a determiner of who is correct in a debate further demonstrates the low level of Bravo's intelligence.

I pity Bravo.

OH-NO Bravo!!

What ever are you going to do; because you've been pitied by sissie.

 

[Timshel]

You're just repeating the SOS in various forms...again No, the "white" kids weren't failing as a group in comparison to the black kids according to the test scores. Why in the hell would you include kids who weren't failing with a group that is failing an needs remedial work? Your question makes no sense because YOU are CREATING a situation that DID NOT EXIST. You do this to avoid the reality of what actually happened and how it does not jibe with your assertions. Again, the black kids were failing 'en masse' as opposed to just part of the general population, that would indicate a common problem that would have to be addressed. How that problem was addressed created a new problem...and I've addressed all that in detail.

None of the white kids were failing? I find that hard to believe.

You single them out based on race then determine one GROUP is failing and another is not. Then you say that is singling them out based on failing performance. That's just complete horseshit.

My question is quite valid and puts the lie to your nonsense.

I "mix and drop" nothing, as the chronology of the posts shows I am responding DIRECTLY to what you profess is accurate in relation to the situation. You NOW say that you agree the principle had no ill intent...that's what the final ruling said....BUT you keep asserting that the lunch bunch was created by racially bias intent regardless of test scores...and that is NOT the case. You can't put the cart before the horse here....the scores dictated the action, however wrong headed the action was.

His intent was not to do harm. He intended to form the group which is a violation of the law. I don't know if there is any proof that he knew his act violated the law, though he should have known. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. I am sure you've heard that before and this a good example of what it means.

Nice try, but as the chronology of the post shows, it was YOU who keep alluding to the very creation of the lunch bunch as racist, which is wasn't. The "motive" was the test score, the "intent" was to correct the situation for the group identified by the test scores. Also, if you cannot prove motive, you sure as hell are going to have a tough time trying to convict someone of a crime in some cases. "Intent" is after you've established guilt via evidence and proved motive..but all come before the final verdict.

No, you have it all backwards. He intended to create the group. That violated the law. Intent is established. His motive, as he claims it and I see no reason to doubt, was to improve the test scores of black students. That does not matter.

Again, if you steal a car, to say, take your grandma to the hospital, intent is established. You intended to steal the car. Now, if your motive is legitimate then the state might not punish you too harshly, they may even clear your record. But you are guilty of a crime.

I have not alluded to it being racist in intent or motive. There is no need for you to mangle another post or to repost the entire thread. Just simply pull out an example of where I did this.

WRONG AGAIN. Your flawed analogy is based upon your incorrect application to the wrong example. Being caught stealing a car requires proving if the accused did indeed steal the car, NOT his intentions. Extenuating or exceptional circumstances come into play AFTER it's been established that the accused did indeed steal said car. Proving INTENT comes up in such cases as to what degree of murder is being charged, and if the prosecution can convict based on evidence regarding intent, or the defense can change the degree of conviction via intent (murder in the 1st, 2nd or 3rd degree).

In a murder case, that has to do with whether it was a crime of passion or it was premeditated. That is, did you intend only to strike the person or did you intend to kill. You are still guilty of a crime either way.

Not at all, I'm explaining to you the sequence that occurs during trials...that it doesn't fit into what you perceive should take place is your problem.

You are completely and totally wrong. And your explanation does not fit with reality or thousands of years of common law.

Nice moot points...now let's apply them to reality. You're on trial for murder...the victim died in a bar fight, the "MOTIVE" for you to beat him to death was a bar fight where he took a swing at you...but the "intent" by you was to NOT to kill him, but to keep from getting hit and win the fight. This is why the verdict is the least degree "manslaughter" and not "murder".

LOL, legal definitions are moot points. Explained above. He intended to create the group or take the action that was in violation of the law. There is no question of that.

Bottom line is that the chronology of the posts shows how you are most insistent in maintaining a label of racism on this incident that just doesn't exist. You try to change the terminology you use in order to support your assertions, but as I've demonstrated, you fail. When all is said and done, YOU want to believe your viewpoint as valid, and will continuously repeat it any way possible. But as I said previously, the devil is in the details, and your details just don't stand up to the light of day.

I should have been more careful in my phrasing, but I was using the common vernacular, not confusing legal terms as you continue to do.

You quite simply, don't know what your are talking about.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
That Bravo cannot logically or factually debate an issue before deteriorating into a ignorant and proudly stubborn child has been well documented. That Bravo actually puts stock into the reputation points as a determiner of who is correct in a debate further demonstrates the low level of Bravo's intelligence.

I pity Bravo.

OH-NO Bravo!!

What ever are you going to do; because you've been pitied by sissie.

Says the man who proudly misspells a simple schoolyard insult (unless he's telling us he's either pissed his pants or is referrin to his little sister.) Small wonder he's called, "Freedumb"

 

[Taichiliberal]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
You're just repeating the SOS in various forms...again No, the "white" kids weren't failing as a group in comparison to the black kids according to the test scores. Why in the hell would you include kids who weren't failing with a group that is failing an needs remedial work? Your question makes no sense because YOU are CREATING a situation that DID NOT EXIST. You do this to avoid the reality of what actually happened and how it does not jibe with your assertions. Again, the black kids were failing 'en masse' as opposed to just part of the general population, that would indicate a common problem that would have to be addressed. How that problem was addressed created a new problem...and I've addressed all that in detail.

None of the white kids were failing? I find that hard to believe.

Where they failing en masse in comparison to ALL the black kids? Nope...and THAT'S the foundation for what transpired....test results that show a group failing in comparison to another group. You keep trying to split hairs, and your efforts are futile.

You single them out based on race then determine one GROUP is failing and another is not. Then you say that is singling them out based on failing performance. That's just complete horseshit.

What's horseshit is your continual regurgitation of a misleading statement.....THE TEST SCORES MADE THE DETERMINATION...it was NOT just some personal opinion. A matter of fact & history. That YOU keep trying to allude otherwise makes you out to be a liar on this point. Your "opinion" here, is horseshit.

My question is quite valid and puts the lie to your nonsense.

Only in your mind..once laid out in print, your illogical conclusions demonstrate an irrational stubborness by you to hold onto your beliefs in leiu of the facts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
I "mix and drop" nothing, as the chronology of the posts shows I am responding DIRECTLY to what you profess is accurate in relation to the situation. You NOW say that you agree the principle had no ill intent...that's what the final ruling said....BUT you keep asserting that the lunch bunch was created by racially bias intent regardless of test scores...and that is NOT the case. You can't put the cart before the horse here....the scores dictated the action, however wrong headed the action was.

His intent was not to do harm. Agreed. He intended to form the group which is a violation of the law. Correction, the group was formed and active BEFORE the fated field trip. I don't know if there is any proof that he knew his act violated the law, though he should have known. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. I am sure you've heard that before and this a good example of what it means. And as I've stated numerous times, he screwed up and should have handled things better....which is why I have no problem with the verdict. My point of contention with YOU is your constant attempts to site racism in places where it did not exist.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Nice try, but as the chronology of the post shows, it was YOU who keep alluding to the very creation of the lunch bunch as racist, which is wasn't. The "motive" was the test score, the "intent" was to correct the situation for the group identified by the test scores. Also, if you cannot prove motive, you sure as hell are going to have a tough time trying to convict someone of a crime in some cases. "Intent" is after you've established guilt via evidence and proved motive..but all come before the final verdict.

No, you have it all backwards. He intended to create the group. That violated the law. Intent is established. His motive, as he claims it and I see no reason to doubt, was to improve the test scores of black students. That does not matter.

Think for a moment....why would he create a group like this if the need did not exist? You're not making sense. My previous assessment stands.

Again, if you steal a car, to say, take your grandma to the hospital, intent is established. You intended to steal the car. Now, if your motive is legitimate then the state might not punish you too harshly, they may even clear your record. But you are guilty of a crime.

Again, you are arrested for theft, but the trial determines sentencing, and during the trial MOTIVE comes into play, and is balanced with intent. The prosecution and defense use each to their advantage and where applicable.

I have not alluded to it being racist in intent or motive. There is no need for you to mangle another post or to repost the entire thread. Just simply pull out an example of where I did this.

As I've pointed out above, it is YOU who are insistent upon using misleading terms that imply racism where it did not exist. What's bothering you is my ability NOT to let you get away with that on any level...and that includes your erroneous applications/examples of certain words and terms.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
WRONG AGAIN. Your flawed analogy is based upon your incorrect application to the wrong example. Being caught stealing a car requires proving if the accused did indeed steal the car, NOT his intentions. Extenuating or exceptional circumstances come into play AFTER it's been established that the accused did indeed steal said car. Proving INTENT comes up in such cases as to what degree of murder is being charged, and if the prosecution can convict based on evidence regarding intent, or the defense can change the degree of conviction via intent (murder in the 1st, 2nd or 3rd degree).

In a murder case, that has to do with whether it was a crime of passion or it was premeditated. That is, did you intend only to strike the person or did you intend to kill. You are still guilty of a crime either way.

Ahhh, being guilty of a crime "either way" does not CHANGE THE FACT THAT VARYING DEGREES OF GUILT ARE DETERMINED BY ESTABLISHING INTENT, AS I'VE PREVIOUSLY DESCRIBED. My previous statement stands valid and correct, and all you've done is essentially repeat what I've stated and tried to make it appear otherwise.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Not at all, I'm explaining to you the sequence that occurs during trials...that it doesn't fit into what you perceive should take place is your problem.

You are completely and totally wrong. And your explanation does not fit with reality or thousands of years of common law.

Again, you're saying so doesn't affect the logic of what I previously stated. I've logically proved my assertions, you haven't.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Nice moot points...now let's apply them to reality. You're on trial for murder...the victim died in a bar fight, the "MOTIVE" for you to beat him to death was a bar fight where he took a swing at you...but the "intent" by you was to NOT to kill him, but to keep from getting hit and win the fight. This is why the verdict is the least degree "manslaughter" and not "murder".

LOL, legal definitions are moot points. No, what's funny is how you continually state the painfully obvious or revise what I've stated and pretend you're saying something different. Explained above. He intended to create the group or take the action that was in violation of the law. There is no question of that.

Your assertions were disproved and discredited above. As I stated before, the group was created in response to what the test scores revealed, the action of the field trip was the focal point of the violation of the law. Indeed, there is no question of that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Bottom line is that the chronology of the posts shows how you are most insistent in maintaining a label of racism on this incident that just doesn't exist. You try to change the terminology you use in order to support your assertions, but as I've demonstrated, you fail. When all is said and done, YOU want to believe your viewpoint as valid, and will continuously repeat it any way possible. But as I said previously, the devil is in the details, and your details just don't stand up to the light of day.

I should have been more careful in my phrasing, but I was using the common vernacular, not confusing legal terms as you continue to do.

Not true....you have used both "common vernacular" and "legal terms" that you professed to correct and instruct me on...so your claim of "confusing" is bogus, as the chronology of the posts shows.

You quite simply, don't know what your are talking about.

So you say, but as I've demonstrated here and previously, you cannot logically or factually prove your accusation. So unless you've got some new angle other than a variation of your previous assertions and allegations, I'd say we're done here.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Where they failing en masse in comparison to ALL the black kids? Nope...and THAT'S the foundation for what transpired....test results that show a group failing in comparison to another group. You keep trying to split hairs, and your efforts are futile.

So you finally admit that this group was race based. Good job.

*I deleted the rest; because of sissie's stupid habit of dissecting a person's post and then including his responses within the other person's quote.*

 

[Taichiliberal]

Where they failing en masse in comparison to ALL the black kids? Nope...and THAT'S the foundation for what transpired....test results that show a group failing in comparison to another group. You keep trying to split hairs, and your efforts are futile.

So you finally admit that this group was race based. Good job.

*I deleted the rest; because of sissie's stupid habit of dissecting a person's post and then including his responses within the other person's quote.*

The group was based on the TEST results, you ignorant lout. That it was racial was a result of the TEST, not by some random opinion or choice.

That is the hair you and like minded jokers keep trying to split. But the facts and the chronology of the posts won't let you.

Oh, and you do realize that by misspelling "sissy" you continue to prove what a stubborn, foolish child you are? If not, I'll just keep reminding you.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Where they failing en masse in comparison to ALL the black kids? Nope...and THAT'S the foundation for what transpired....test results that show a group failing in comparison to another group. You keep trying to split hairs, and your efforts are futile.

The group was based on the TEST results, you ignorant lout. That it was racial was a result of the TEST, not by some random opinion or choice.

That is the hair you and like minded jokers keep trying to split. But the facts and the chronology of the posts won't let you.

Oh, and you do realize that by misspelling "sissy" you continue to prove what a stubborn, foolish child you are? If not, I'll just keep reminding you.

You really need to stop abusing yourself sissie, by posting more words that are hanging yourself out to dry.

If you're suggesting that the group was formed because the blacks were failing "enmass", then two situations need to be considered:
1. The group was formed for only the failing blacks, which makes it discriminatory
2. If it was for failing kids, then students other then blacks should have been included.

Having a "group" to help only one segment is discrimination.
If this group had been composed of only white students and the same excuses were used, you would be screaming racism, at the top of your tiny little lungs.

YOU LOSE

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Where they failing en masse in comparison to ALL the black kids? Nope...and THAT'S the foundation for what transpired....test results that show a group failing in comparison to another group. You keep trying to split hairs, and your efforts are futile.

The group was based on the TEST results, you ignorant lout. That it was racial was a result of the TEST, not by some random opinion or choice.

That is the hair you and like minded jokers keep trying to split. But the facts and the chronology of the posts won't let you.

Oh, and you do realize that by misspelling "sissy" you continue to prove what a stubborn, foolish child you are? If not, I'll just keep reminding you.

You really need to stop abusing yourself sissie, (you need to stop telling us you pissed your pants, or stop calling your sister that name...she's gotta be over 30 by now and is embarassed by your silliness.) by posting more words that are hanging yourself out to dry. So you say, but can you prove your allegations?


If you're suggesting that the group was formed because the blacks were failing "enmass", then two situations need to be considered:

1. The group was formed for only the failing blacks, which makes it discriminatory No, the group was formed because the test scores indicated that as a groups blacks were failing in a higher ratio than blacks. It wasn't just a random decision.
2. If it was for failing kids, then students other then blacks should have been included. Now as I've stated time and again, the approach should have been to increase mandadorty tutor programs. The principal reacted wrongly based on the fact that you had a specific group identified by test results. The intent was not racist, but the results (i.e., the field trip) was perceived by others as such, and in violation of the local school board ruling.

Having a "group" to help only one segment is discrimination. If one segment is performing lower than everyone else, than addressing the identified group is an acknowledgement, not discrimination. Discrimination would be saying "okay, we just have a few general poor students....let's divide them by race and give special treatment to one". That was not the case, despite your attempts to say it was.
If this group had been composed of only white students and the same excuses were used, you would be screaming racism, at the top of your tiny little lungs.

Pure supposition and conjecture on your part, which has NO relevence to the discussion.

YOU LOSE

What exactly, according to you, am I "losing"?

 

[Timshel]

You have not proven or disproven jack shit, except that you are stupid/stubborn. Your argument is plainly wrong.

They were failing as a group, okay. But they were singled out based on race to create that group. There is no reason for them to be judged as a group. The effect is without a doubt racist. It should not have been done and if he had failed all of them based on some retarded idea that there results as a group matter, you would be calling for his head. He could have claimed the same motive, a desire to see that they get proper education as a group.

If you honestly did not intend to kill someone or a reasonable person would not have expected the act to kill, then it is manslaughter, not murder. Your intent was not to kill. If it was done in the "heat of passion" then one can assume you may not have intended to kill, but you should have known that your act might kill. First degree murder is premeditated and willful and the intent is clearly to kill.

None of these variations have anything to do with motive. The motive could be the same in all three. For instance, the victim called you a name. In manslaughter, you got in a fight with the victim that led to his/her death. In 2nd degree, you lashed out in anger by picking up an object and striking the victim on the head. In 1st degree, you waited until he was alone and then struck him with a blunt object. These are different crimes because the criminal's intent was different, not the motive.

None of this applies in here. His intent was, clearly, to create the group, which violates the law. Intent is established.

I don't know what you are talking about with "the trial determines sentencing." No, the trial determines guilt. If you intended to steal a car your motive is not a defense against the charge. Your motive, if you can prove it, may certainly be used to determine how harshly you will punished.

It's like talking to Ditzy. You are doing nothing but showing willful ignorance. I am done with this.

 

[Taichiliberal]

You have not proven or disproven jack shit, except that you are stupid/stubborn. Your argument is plainly wrong.

They were failing as a group, okay. But they were singled out based on race to create that group. There is no reason for them to be judged as a group. The effect is without a doubt racist. It should not have been done and if he had failed all of them based on some retarded idea that there results as a group matter, you would be calling for his head. He could have claimed the same motive, a desire to see that they get proper education as a group.

If you honestly did not intend to kill someone or a reasonable person would not have expected the act to kill, then it is manslaughter, not murder. Your intent was not to kill. If it was done in the "heat of passion" then one can assume you may not have intended to kill, but you should have known that your act might kill. First degree murder is premeditated and willful and the intent is clearly to kill.

None of these variations have anything to do with motive. The motive could be the same in all three. For instance, the victim called you a name. In manslaughter, you got in a fight with the victim that led to his/her death. In 2nd degree, you lashed out in anger by picking up an object and striking the victim on the head. In 1st degree, you waited until he was alone and then struck him with a blunt object. These are different crimes because the criminal's intent was different, not the motive.

None of this applies in here. His intent was, clearly, to create the group, which violates the law. Intent is established.

I don't know what you are talking about with "the trial determines sentencing." No, the trial determines guilt. If you intended to steal a car your motive is not a defense against the charge. Your motive, if you can prove it, may certainly be used to determine how harshly you will punished.

It's like talking to Ditzy. You are doing nothing but showing willful ignorance. I am done with this.

And all this fool did folks, was to repeat the SOS he's been squawking for the last few posts. And since I've logically demonstrated that String prefers his belief and opinion than the actual facts and logic derived from them, he just flies off into a predictable diatribe.

http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showpost.php?p=655471&postcount=491

When all is said and done, String is just insipidly stubborn, and when he can't have his way, throws a tantrum. TFB for him. As I said in post 491, if he couldn't offer anything new, we're done. And as expected, String offers nothing new....so we're done.

 

[Timshel]

The principal reacted wrongly based on the fact that you had a specific group identified by test results.

Clearly wrong. The group was NOT identified by test scores. That would have included all the failing kids and only the failing kids, not just the black kids. The group was identified by race. The test scores of that group were below par, but the group was still identified by race.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

What exactly, according to you, am I "losing"?

Your ass.

I take it that you'll have no problem in defending this:

Teacher Catherine Ariemma Allow Four Students to Wear Ku Klux Klan Outfits in Reenactment at Georgia High School
Posted by Janet Shan * 6:18 PM * View Comments
Catherine Ariemma, a history teacher at Lumpkin County High School in Dahlonega, Ga., was placed on administrative leave Monday after she allowed four students to wear Ku Klux Klan outfits in a historical reenactment. The Lumpkin County Schools superintendent Dewey Moye told the Atlanta Journal Constitution that the teacher "used extremely poor judgment."

Ms. Ariemma reportedly teaches an advanced placement history class. According to the AJC, her students were filming reenactments of various historical periods and four wore KKK outfits. The incident sparked outrage after students from other classrooms saw them as they walked down a hallway. The parents of an African American student at the school complained.

There is absolutely no excuse for anyone using such poor judgment. This is so disturbing and on so many levels. She should have known that allowing the students to dress in KKK garb would spark outrage. She should be fired for being so dumb.

http://blackpoliticalthought.blogspot.com/2010/05/teacher-catherine-ariemma-allow-four.html

 

[Sammy Jankis]

Clearly wrong. The group was NOT identified by test scores. That would have included all the failing kids and only the failing kids, not just the black kids. The group was identified by race. The test scores of that group were below par, but the group was still identified by race.

Are you saying it's impossible that all the failing kids were black?