Gay Bar Attack

[Chuck64]

Once again, GBO... You're logic is flawless. But back in the real world, we all know that there's a lot of BS that happens in politics against the wishes of the majority. If you need proof, look at the 2000 presidential election.

They've changed their methods, but the hate is the same.

Southern trees bear strange fruit,
Blood on the leaves and blood at the root,
Black bodies swinging in the southern breeze,
Strange fruit hanging from the poplar trees.

Pastoral scene of the gallant south,
The bulging eyes and the twisted mouth,
Scent of magnolias, sweet and fresh,
Then the sudden smell of burning flesh.

Here is fruit for the crows to pluck,
For the rain to gather, for the wind to suck,
For the sun to rot, for the trees to drop,
Here is a strange and bitter crop. - Abel Meeropol, 1939

 

[GottaBigOne]

Yes, the majority doesn't always win, as well it shouldn't, because a majority should never be able to vote the minority into slavery, or any such thing as slavery, that is why the Jim Crow Laws even if they had popular support were wrong and were rightly repealed. But those laws weren't changed before the minds of those that hold political power had changed their mind. It took boycotts and protests and demonstartions to raise the awareness that those laws were wrong, then they were changed. Protest is not force, boycott is not force, they are a way of convincing someone of the truth, a way of showing them that they can not get away with doing evil. Thta is what I mean when I say there are better ways of changing people's minds (actually when iI say there is one way to change people's mind, and force is not one of them) I do not mean that you should sit back and take it, and ignore it. You should do everything in your power, short of force, to change people's minds. The government is and can only be a agent of force, everything it does is at the point of a gun. It must not be used to deprive people of their right to their own life, which means their right to their mind, which means their right to hold whatever belief they want. This does not mean that they can get away with murder, or that we shouldn't condemn racists publicly and ostracize them, it just means that we do not have the right to point a gun in their face. Morality ends where a gun begins. You can't make a person moral if they have no choice, and putting a gun in their face is giving them no choice. In regards to crime this is fine, but it is not a crime to be a bigot, it is a crime to violate another's right to their life, no matter how much you disagree with their lifestyle, it is still their life, and they own it, and they can spend it fucking whoever they want (as long as it is consenting)

 

[madame_zora]

Yes, the majority doesn't always win, as well it shouldn't, because a majority should never be able to vote the minority into slavery, or any such thing as slavery, that is why the Jim Crow Laws even if they had popular support were wrong and were rightly repealed. But those laws weren't changed before the minds of those that hold political power had changed their mind. It took boycotts and protests and demonstartions to raise the awareness that those laws were wrong, then they were changed. Protest is not force, boycott is not force, they are a way of convincing someone of the truth, a way of showing them that they can not get away with doing evil. Thta is what I mean when I say there are better ways of changing people's minds (actually when iI say there is one way to change people's mind, and force is not one of them) I do not mean that you should sit back and take it, and ignore it. You should do everything in your power, short of force, to change people's minds. The government is and can only be a agent of force, everything it does is at the point of a gun. It must not be used to deprive people of their right to their own life, which means their right to their mind, which means their right to hold whatever belief they want. This does not mean that they can get away with murder, or that we shouldn't condemn racists publicly and ostracize them, it just means that we do not have the right to point a gun in their face. Morality ends where a gun begins. You can't make a person moral if they have no choice, and putting a gun in their face is giving them no choice. In regards to crime this is fine, but it is not a crime to be a bigot, it is a crime to violate another's right to their life, no matter how much you disagree with their lifestyle, it is still their life, and they own it, and they can spend it fucking whoever they want (as long as it is consenting)

I fail to see where passing laws is not one of those options we have in our toolbags as citizens. If our representatives were truly that, they should be beholden to the voices of the people. Therefore when we raise our voices to condemn ignorance and intolerance, legislators should be responding to our will, not we to theirs. Abraham Lincoln's idea of freeing slaves only had about a 33% approval rating at the time, but he pushed his will on the policy makers of the time because you just shouldn't have to wait hundreds of years for the extra stupid ones to accept the blatantly obvious.

 

[GottaBigOne]

Laws that violate individual rights should not be passed no matter how popular they are.

 

[B_Stronzo]

Laws that violate individual rights should not be passed no matter how popular they are.

As altruistic as that sounds may I respectfully ask that you address the reality of what happened rather than this specific aspect of it GBO.

Were you to do so, to this poster you'd seem (at the very least) not so detached from that reality of Jacob Robida's violent acts. You've effectively changed the focus to but one aspect of this thing and diverted the original premise of the thread.

ONE MORE TIME FOLKS:

"a man walked into a gay bar[in New Bedford, Massachusetts] and began attacking patrons with a gun and a hatchet. One person suffered a gunshot wound to the chest, another had a gunshot wound to the back and severe cuts to his face, and a third received multiple cuts. The attacker, identified by police as 18 year old Jacob Robida (see photo), then fled the scene.

BOSTON - The teenager who killed a police officer and a woman in Arkansas days after an attack in a Massachusetts gay bar shot himself in the head with the same gun used in the bar attack, authorities said. Police originally said that they shot Robida Saturday after he fired at them at the end of a high-speed chase in rural Arkansas. Robida killed Gassville, Ark., police officer Jim Sell and led police on a 20-mile chase before being stopped in nearby Norfork.


Update:

Jacob Robida, 18, of New Bedford, turned the gun on himself Saturday in a gunfight with Arkansas police, shortly after he fatally shot a West Virginia woman who was in his car, said Bristol District Attorney Paul Walsh Jr.

**********************************************************


My intent, once more GBO, was to inform the board of the phenomenon.

Why not start a seperate thread for "Hate Crimes" per se since their legitimacy seems to be so questionable to you.

Thanks, Stronzo

 

[B_Stronzo]

In a democracy it is impossible to change laws without the consent of the majority, so I do not understand how you can change the law before you change people's minds.

When you've effectively had a part in changing all those minds you assume can be changed I'll willingly lend your philosophy an ear.

Until then it's pure rhetoric. Time for a "Hate Crime" thread. The logical author is "GottaBigOne"

 

[GottaBigOne]

There's no need to start a new thread, you informed us all, it tragic, we get it, we can discuss whatever we want about it.

And also: it is not at all altruistic to talk about the protection of INDIVIDUAL rights. I suggest you read up on your terms and find out what they mean.

 

[B_Stronzo]

There's no need to start a new thread, you informed us all, it tragic, we get it, we can discuss whatever we want about it.

That's the first time you've acknowledged it. Finally. Thanks. I just find your lack of compassion rather telling in the midst of all your verbiage.

And also: it is not at all altruistic to talk about the protection of INDIVIDUAL rights. I suggest you read up on your terms and find out what they mean.

I assume your interest in 'INDIVIDUAL' rights isn't selfish? Is it?

Now now. You seem totally defensive and you overstate yourself ad nauseum. I'll stick with my terminology old boy and you can have yours. If I were to cite the spelling errors in nearly every post you make we'd be here until Doomsday.

I 'suggest' you buy yourself a dictionary.

 

[GottaBigOne]

Those are typoes, not spelling errors.

My interest in individual rights is entirely selfish.

What made you think I wasn't compassionate about what happened? Why would you think I wouldn't care about soemoen being murdered?????

 

[Nelly Gay]

For those of you who may not have heard about the New Bedford Massachusetts 18 year old's neo-Nazi attack on gay patrons at a gay bar here in coastal Massachusetts please read here:

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/02/03/attack_at_gay_bar_leaves_3_injured/

The fucktard was apprehended in Arkansas last night but not before he shot and killed a police officer and the female passenger riding in his car. Jacob Robida sustained critical gunshot wounds to the head. Also, check out his page at http://www.myspace.com/jakejekyll He's listed as "Jake Jekyll".

To date the Mormon Governor of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Mitt Romney has said nothing about the attack. Both Senators Kennedy and Kerry have made statements encouraging current Hate Crime Legislation to i nclude gay and lesbians.

I'm interested to know how much the rest of the country knows about this thing since it appears (oddly) not to have warranted national news coverage.

Whosoever Fights Monsters ...

Nietsche.

 

[DC_DEEP]

GBO, I have missed you. Where have you been hiding?