Sure. The problem is that some people, for no reason other than that their skin is black, are starting the game with a double mulligan.
It's more like triple mulligan into a one-land hand and hoping it'll somehow get you there, depending on where you are and what your background is like.
I mean, I've seen someone win against Storm by mulling down to 2 and opening with Chalice on 0, but that is not the kind of thing that happens very often, if you get the metaphor.
Skullclamp cannot really be considered a best for it was banned upon release. I think the best card/most broken card on that list has to be Bloodbraid Elf. That card was too busted.
Have you not been reading anything I've been saying since the beginning of the thread?
I have been, but I don't really understand it. Why do you think black people are disadvantaged due to the color of their skin when trying to succeed in life?
Skullclamp cannot really be considered a best for it was banned upon release. I think the best card/most broken card on that list has to be Bloodbraid Elf. That card was too busted.
I have been, but I don't really understand it. Why do you think black people are disadvantaged due to the color of their skin when trying to succeed in life?
Because statistically speaking and as has been elucidated to a heroic degree already, they are. You're just being unbelievably dense and you keep twisting definitions around to suit you while ignoring the real issue.
Skullclamp cannot really be considered a best for it was banned upon release. I think the best card/most broken card on that list has to be Bloodbraid Elf. That card was too busted.
Because statistically speaking and as has been elucidated to a heroic degree already, they are. You're just being unbelievably dense and you keep twisting definitions around to suit you while ignoring the real issue.
No, being poor is the triple mulligan. Race may have led to where the black community is now, but as of now race is not really an issue compared to poverty. Which is why I don't think we should be giving special privileges to poor blacks over poor whites. For all intents and purposes they are equally disadvantaged.
No, being poor is the triple mulligan. Race may have led to where the black community is now, but as of now race is not really an issue compared to poverty. Which is why I don't think we should be giving special privileges to poor blacks over poor whites. For all intents and purposes they are equally disadvantaged.
If that were so, wouldn't they have an equal per-capita jail population?
Speaking of which, to answer a question from Peter from way back: Higher minimum sentences for crack cocaine than for powder form are racist, because they're both cocaine, but 80% of the former's users are black, while 80% of the latter's users are white.
Speaking of which, to answer a question from Peter from way back: Higher minimum sentences for crack cocaine than for powder form are racist, because they're both cocaine, but 80% of the former's users are black, while 80% of the latter's users are white.
Why are you so convinced the reason for that law is race based?
Skullclamp cannot really be considered a best for it was banned upon release. I think the best card/most broken card on that list has to be Bloodbraid Elf. That card was too busted.
Why are you so convinced the reason for that law is race based?
Probably because the reason crack was argued to need a higher punishment is because of its perception as "dangerous", seeing as it was the more popular with those violent inner city gangs, instead of mostly harmless white kids just looking to party. It's an image of each drug steeped in racial stereotypes, there's nothing inherent about crack that makes it significantly more dangerous than powder cocaine.
Besides, it doesn't have to be consciously racist to have seriously disproportionate effects on one group. Once such a thing is realized, not fixing it IS consciously racist.
This country was founded on the idea that this will be the place where we take your poor, your tired, your hungry. The land of opportunity.
yes and at that time getting into this country was very difficult. You had to be healthy if you had any sickness at all you were turned away. You had to have some kind of a job skill. if you didn't have some kind of a job skill you were turned away.
The great immigration boom brought a great many people that had the job skills needed and the mentality to open businesses and other things.
They didn't just take anyone that wanted to come in.
Have you not been reading anything I've been saying since the beginning of the thread?
The problem is there if very little information out there to support this as i have shown. What few studies have been done are inconclusive at best.
No, being poor is the triple mulligan. Race may have led to where the black community is now, but as of now race is not really an issue compared to poverty. Which is why I don't think we should be giving special privileges to poor blacks over poor whites. For all intents and purposes they are equally disadvantaged.
actually i agree with logic on this one. It is a big disadvantage it is one that can be overcome but it is difficult. it requires a lot of personal choices as well as external influences.
Higher minimum sentences for crack cocaine than for powder form are racist
yes because it absolutely has nothing to do with the fact that crack cocaine is inherently way more dangerous than just powder.
It also has nothing to do with the fact that crack is easier to obtain than power cocain. that crack leads to higher declines in neighborhoods and other area's compared to powered.
While they are both cocain there is a big difference in how they operate and their effects. both are bad but crack is easily worse.
The law isn't racist is it just that more black people prefer crack to powder for various reasons. cost, transportation, etc...
white people are more prefered to powder cocaine than crack as their drug of choice between the two of them. the sentencing is the same for both if caught with the drug of either type.
this is another topic though.
there's nothing inherent about crack that makes it significantly more dangerous than powder cocaine.
I like that this actually backed up exactly what I said.
Because of its heavy usage among various age groups today, crack has been regarded as a more dangerous addictive substance than most of the other abusive drug forms.
Crack gets you high faster. It has other differences, it may have a stronger addictive property, but to say that those justify (again from your article)
Just obtaining 5g of crack will make you eligible for 5 years imprisonment, compared to obtaining 500g powder cocaine and being sentenced for the same extent of time.
You really think this is a justified difference with absolutely no connection to the racial image of crack? Come on now.
This is getting slightly off topic, but it's a good illustration of different ways inequality can be perpetuated in society. Rules are made by the majority, and they can easily make laws that appear to apply equally to everyone, but disproportionately affect a minority group. Imagine you really disliked Seventh Day Adventists, and you didn't want them to work for you. Sure, you could say "No Seventh Day Adventists" in your job application sign, but that would draw a lot of attention and be busted on right quick. But what about you require every employee to work every other Saturday? The same rule applies to everyone, but suddenly SDAs can't follow your rule. Even if you could easily have them work Sundays, or extra hours other days, hey, that's the rule, no special rights for minorities, right?
This sort of thing happens all the time, though to be fair most of it is unconscious. But whenever something like this comes up, and people try to fix the problem, there are always screams about "special rights" for minorities or "special interests" as the modern parlance goes. This is what I have termed, after a real-life experience, 4 year old fairness- it's like a child that protests about how unfair it is that her brother got a bigger slice of pie, even though she doesn't really like pie and had a snack an hour before dinner. Sometimes, substantive equality requires different treatment.
You really think this is a justified difference with absolutely no connection to the racial image of crack?
Yes.
Your whole paragraph points to the idea that any policy, law, or rule you might make, if it inadvertently negatively affects a specific group of people, it isn't fair because it makes life unequal weather you have any proof it was done on purpose or not.
Oh no! Why does the CW play new episodes of Smallville on Friday nights! They must hate magic players because they play FNM on the same night! The Smallville producers must hate us too! Oh and all Superman fans too! We must demand Smallville be played on other nights so it's fair, otherwise we are put at a disadvantage, who's with me?
Skullclamp cannot really be considered a best for it was banned upon release. I think the best card/most broken card on that list has to be Bloodbraid Elf. That card was too busted.
Sib the one thing that your arguement lacks is proof.
the article doesn't back up what you said it says differently than what you stated.
You really think this is a justified difference with absolutely no connection to the racial image of crack? Come on now.
again the punishment guide lines on crack is heavier because of it's more destructive properties and due to the high crime area's that spring up around those types of places.
all it takes is 1 crack house in a neighborhood and then as they say there goes the neighborhood.
therefore crack has a stiffer pentaly than just regular cocain.
in any event back to the main topic.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around. Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Sure. The problem is that some people, for no reason other than that their skin is black, are starting the game with a double mulligan.
It's more like triple mulligan into a one-land hand and hoping it'll somehow get you there, depending on where you are and what your background is like.
I mean, I've seen someone win against Storm by mulling down to 2 and opening with Chalice on 0, but that is not the kind of thing that happens very often, if you get the metaphor.
Why do you say that?
Have you not been reading anything I've been saying since the beginning of the thread?
I have been, but I don't really understand it. Why do you think black people are disadvantaged due to the color of their skin when trying to succeed in life?
Because statistically speaking and as has been elucidated to a heroic degree already, they are. You're just being unbelievably dense and you keep twisting definitions around to suit you while ignoring the real issue.
I am not convinced. Care to provide any proof?
I don't see how. Point me to where I changed any definition or ignored the issue we are discussing.
No, being poor is the triple mulligan. Race may have led to where the black community is now, but as of now race is not really an issue compared to poverty. Which is why I don't think we should be giving special privileges to poor blacks over poor whites. For all intents and purposes they are equally disadvantaged.
If that were so, wouldn't they have an equal per-capita jail population?
Speaking of which, to answer a question from Peter from way back: Higher minimum sentences for crack cocaine than for powder form are racist, because they're both cocaine, but 80% of the former's users are black, while 80% of the latter's users are white.
Why are you so convinced the reason for that law is race based?
Probably because the reason crack was argued to need a higher punishment is because of its perception as "dangerous", seeing as it was the more popular with those violent inner city gangs, instead of mostly harmless white kids just looking to party. It's an image of each drug steeped in racial stereotypes, there's nothing inherent about crack that makes it significantly more dangerous than powder cocaine.
Besides, it doesn't have to be consciously racist to have seriously disproportionate effects on one group. Once such a thing is realized, not fixing it IS consciously racist.
yes and at that time getting into this country was very difficult. You had to be healthy if you had any sickness at all you were turned away. You had to have some kind of a job skill. if you didn't have some kind of a job skill you were turned away.
The great immigration boom brought a great many people that had the job skills needed and the mentality to open businesses and other things.
They didn't just take anyone that wanted to come in.
The problem is there if very little information out there to support this as i have shown. What few studies have been done are inconclusive at best.
actually i agree with logic on this one. It is a big disadvantage it is one that can be overcome but it is difficult. it requires a lot of personal choices as well as external influences.
yes because it absolutely has nothing to do with the fact that crack cocaine is inherently way more dangerous than just powder.
It also has nothing to do with the fact that crack is easier to obtain than power cocain. that crack leads to higher declines in neighborhoods and other area's compared to powered.
While they are both cocain there is a big difference in how they operate and their effects. both are bad but crack is easily worse.
The law isn't racist is it just that more black people prefer crack to powder for various reasons. cost, transportation, etc...
white people are more prefered to powder cocaine than crack as their drug of choice between the two of them. the sentencing is the same for both if caught with the drug of either type.
this is another topic though.
this and other sources say otherwise.
http://www.differencebetween.net/object/difference-between-crack-and-powder/
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around.
Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
I like that this actually backed up exactly what I said.
Crack gets you high faster. It has other differences, it may have a stronger addictive property, but to say that those justify (again from your article)
You really think this is a justified difference with absolutely no connection to the racial image of crack? Come on now.
This is getting slightly off topic, but it's a good illustration of different ways inequality can be perpetuated in society. Rules are made by the majority, and they can easily make laws that appear to apply equally to everyone, but disproportionately affect a minority group. Imagine you really disliked Seventh Day Adventists, and you didn't want them to work for you. Sure, you could say "No Seventh Day Adventists" in your job application sign, but that would draw a lot of attention and be busted on right quick. But what about you require every employee to work every other Saturday? The same rule applies to everyone, but suddenly SDAs can't follow your rule. Even if you could easily have them work Sundays, or extra hours other days, hey, that's the rule, no special rights for minorities, right?
This sort of thing happens all the time, though to be fair most of it is unconscious. But whenever something like this comes up, and people try to fix the problem, there are always screams about "special rights" for minorities or "special interests" as the modern parlance goes. This is what I have termed, after a real-life experience, 4 year old fairness- it's like a child that protests about how unfair it is that her brother got a bigger slice of pie, even though she doesn't really like pie and had a snack an hour before dinner. Sometimes, substantive equality requires different treatment.
Yes.
Your whole paragraph points to the idea that any policy, law, or rule you might make, if it inadvertently negatively affects a specific group of people, it isn't fair because it makes life unequal weather you have any proof it was done on purpose or not.
Oh no! Why does the CW play new episodes of Smallville on Friday nights! They must hate magic players because they play FNM on the same night! The Smallville producers must hate us too! Oh and all Superman fans too! We must demand Smallville be played on other nights so it's fair, otherwise we are put at a disadvantage, who's with me?
the article doesn't back up what you said it says differently than what you stated.
again the punishment guide lines on crack is heavier because of it's more destructive properties and due to the high crime area's that spring up around those types of places.
all it takes is 1 crack house in a neighborhood and then as they say there goes the neighborhood.
therefore crack has a stiffer pentaly than just regular cocain.
in any event back to the main topic.
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around.
Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum