Support NeoGAF

[APF]

No they don't. They are limited only by their definition.
If you're limiting, taking away, or otherwise attacking a right of a person or group, then it's not a right, it's a privilege.

Not letting felons vote, for example, is a violation of their rights. Voting is thus effectively a privilege, and not a right. Felons should be allowed to vote.

Rights MUST be absolute to mean anything. It used to be that society learned to ignore and avoid the assholes, now we sue and demand that the government protect us from ourselves, at the expense of our rights.

Liberty safety something something.

However if you're arrested, your right to liberty is violated; therefore liberty is a privilege not a right; therefore the premise of your argument is invalidated.

 

[<+)O Robido O(+>]

This is exactly the quote I was talking about. I'm not sure why you're repeating it back to me like it somewhat undermines what I said.

Look up the words "implied" and "connection"

what I think we know separate and apart from this incident

So he can't give two answers to two questions now, because the answer to the sencond might imply or infer a connection to the first answer? Even thought he stood right there and said "what I think we know separate and apart from this incident"? That's reaching.

 

[WickedAngel]

No they don't. They are limited only by their definition.
If you're limiting, taking away, or otherwise attacking a right of a person or group, then it's not a right, it's a privilege.

Not letting felons vote, for example, is a violation of their rights. Voting is thus effectively a privilege, and not a right. Felons should be allowed to vote.

Rights MUST be absolute to mean anything. It used to be that society learned to ignore and avoid the assholes, now we sue and demand that the government protect us from ourselves, at the expense of our rights.

Liberty safety something something.

Yes, they do. You have the freedom to speech but that doesn't mean you can say whatever you want. You have the freedom to bear arms but that doesn't mean that you can own any gun. Any number of freedoms can be shown to have caveats and limits.

What should be and what is are two different things. In the real world, rights have limits.

 

[nyong]

Even thought he stood right there and said "what I think we know separate and apart from this incident"? That's reaching.

This is the equivalent of saying "I'm not racist, but...."

The first part does not negate what follows.

Racism should have never even entered into the discussion on Gate's arrest, other than to point out that the professor is a knee-jerk lunatic. This isn't some poor dude yanked out of his own home and arrested without cause-- he came unglued, following and provoking the officer until he was arrested.

 

[Freshmaker]

However if you're arrested, your right to liberty is violated; therefore liberty is a privilege not a right; therefore the premise of your argument is invalidated.

This.

There are also limits to the first amendment's free speech. You can't incite riots, slander, shout "fire" in theaters etc...

 

[WickedAngel]

This.

There are also limits to the first amendment's free speech. You can't incite riots, slander, shout "fire" in theaters etc...

...no matter how fun it may be.

 

[jmdajr]

...no matter how fun it may be.

how is it fun?

 

[theviolenthero]

I can't wait to see the internet flooded later tonight & over the weekend with clips of O'reilly,Beck,Limbaugh,etc... commenting on this. :lol

 

[WickedAngel]

how is it fun?

How isn't it? Watch the lemmings crush each other.

Spoiler

I'm not serious.

 

[NumberTwo]

Does anyone else see this as not a black and white issue, but a shade of gray? Wasn't there room for deescalation on both sides? Both sides want to be 100% right. When the reality of the situation is most likely that a tinge of arrogance could be found in both parties. Both Gates and the officers inflated egos retain this sense of self entitlement. The Professors remarks were certainly inflammatory, and unneeded; but Crowley(sp) being the Police officer, at work and a representative of the state should have exercised better judgment (in arresting him or not rather). Crowley's intentions may have been completely noble, and Gates verbal attacks may have baiting, but the cop shouldn't have taken that bait. All this with regard to the fact that he was in his own house.

Bad judgment on all sides.

 

[jmdajr]

On Friday, Obama made an impromptu appearance at the daily White House briefing in an effort to contain the controversy. He said he continued to believe that the both the officer, Sgt. James Crowley, and Gates had overreacted during the incident, but the president also faulted his own comments.

“This has been ratcheting up, and I obviously helped to contribute ratcheting it up,” he said. “I want to make clear that in my choice of words, I think I unfortunately gave an impression that I was maligning the Cambridge police department and Sgt. Crowley specifically. And I could've calibrated those words differently.”

Yeah Obama should have said nothing. Oh well.

 

[Triggafinga]

I can't wait to see the internet flooded later tonight & over the weekend with clips of O'reilly,Beck,Limbaugh,etc... commenting on this. :lol

Gates is probably dreading whats going to be said from the fringe right wing. Their going to hurt his case. Good thing Obama (being the cooler head in the case after ODDLY injecting himself into the conservation ) is going to have everyone over for beer. Gates will vote for Obama in 2012 book it..

 

[<+)O Robido O(+>]

Here's a primarily black message boards take on the whole situation. Why is it so much different from Gafs?

 

[levious]

he also told the media to leave Crowley alone, thought that was good.

 

[harSon]

I can't wait to see the internet flooded later tonight & over the weekend with clips of O'reilly,Beck,Limbaugh,etc... commenting on this. :lol

It's always funny to see the only time they acknowledge racism on their shows is when there's an apparent case of "reverse racism".

Here's a primarily black message boards take on the whole situation. Why is it so much different from Gafs?

Because the backgrounds between the people are completely different?

 

[Triggafinga]

Does anyone else see this as not a black and white issue, but a shade of gray? Wasn't there room for deescalation on both sides? Both sides want to be 100% right. When the reality of the situation is most likely that a tinge of arrogance was could be found in both parties. Both Gates and the officers inflated egos retain this since of self entitlement. The Professors remarks were certainly inflammatory, and unneeded; but Crowley(sp) being the Police officer, at work and a representative of the state should have exercised better judgment (in arresting him or not rather). Crowley's intentions may have been completely noble, and Gates verbal attacks may have baiting, but the cop shouldn't have taken that bait. All this with regard to the fact that he was in his own house.

Bad judgment on all sides.

co-sign ... will the media co-sign, that is the question. I say the right wing will have a field day and further hurt their chances to gain any seats in the north. Good luck GOP

 

[tak]

Does anyone else see this as not a black and white issue, but a shade of gray? Wasn't there room for deescalation on both sides? Both sides want to be 100% right. When the reality of the situation is most likely that a tinge of arrogance was could be found in both parties. Both Gates and the officers inflated egos retain this since of self entitlement. The Professors remarks were certainly inflammatory, and unneeded; but Crowley(sp) being the Police officer, at work and a representative of the state should have exercised better judgment (in arresting him or not rather). Crowley's intentions may have been completely noble, and Gates verbal attacks may have baiting, but the cop shouldn't have taken that bait. All this with regard to the fact that he was in his own house.

Bad judgment on all sides.

That's pretty much why this argument will never end. It's becoming clear as more information comes out that mistakes were made on both sides.

 

[Mudkips]

However if you're arrested, your right to liberty is violated; therefore liberty is a privilege not a right; therefore the premise of your argument is invalidated.

Just because the courts fail at interpreting the Constitution doesn't make my argument invalid.

What argument did you think I was making? Did you think I was saying that people:
Should have every "right" currently guaranteed to them in the constitution absolutely?

They should, in terms of interpreting the current Constitution.
They shouldn't, in terms of what rights I think people should have.

You're line of reasoning trying to invalidate my argument also assumes that I think people should be imprisoned. I do think that, but you can't logically assume that.

I merely stated that things that are restricted are not rights, but privileges. And that if you want to apply the rights guaranteed to us by the Constitution, then you have to apply them as rights, absolutely and universally.

I am all for more exact definitions and delineations in the Constitution. For reference, I'm in favor of imprisoning criminals (which is a violation of their current right to liberty etc.), against any form of gun restriction beyond age and safety courses, and most importantly, against ANY AND ALL forms of restriction on speech - I don't care if you're posting nuclear launch codes on 4chan.

WickedAngel.
No. A right is absolute, universal, and inalienable. Otherwise it is a privilege.
The government does NOT have the power to restrict my speech, what guns I own, etc.
In fact, the government is charged with protecting my rights (from state local governments, other people, etc.).

The fact that they currently DO restrict my rights is an example of FAILURE on their part (and ours for letting it happen). If you AGREE with any restrictions that are currently imposed, that's fine.
But it's WRONG to restrict those rights, unless you amend the constitution to more accurately and precisely define and delineate those rights (something I am all for), or to redefine them as privileges, along with how you gain, lose, and reacquire said privilege.

Basically, taking the right gun ownership, right to spout potentially harmful shit, etc.:

It's GOOD that we have that right.
It's WRONG to restrict it (outside of it's definition in the constitution).
It's STUPID to exercise that right in many cases.

 

[cubicle47b]

He was fine in calling the arrest stupid. And I think it's a good idea for him to talk about race relations in this country and interactions between the police and african-americans in particular. However, it was a inevitable that doing both at the same time would blow up on him. Some people parse words for good intentions (usually depends on which "side" you're on) and some for the worst and the press almost always latches onto the worst.

 

[nyong]

That's pretty much why this argument will never end. It's becoming clear as more information comes out that mistakes were made on both sides.

This argument is absolutely fine by me. If you want to discuss how much verbal abuse an officer should take before hauling someone off to prison that's fine. That's a fair discussion to have.

But the "racist cop" argument has been all but completely undermined at this point. Right now the knee-jerk professor is the last bastion of stupid.

 

[soul creator]

That's pretty much why this argument will never end. It's becoming clear as more information comes out that mistakes were made on both sides.

I don't think anyone really disputes that. It's just that one side has far more power than the other one, so it comes with greater responsibility. Or something.

Sort of like when people try to equate "random individuals taking loans they shouldn't have" with "banks giving bad loans were able to systematically bring down our economic system". Yes, both sides "made bad decisions", but for the purposes of any sort of discussion on how to prevent these things from happening in the future, you probably want to focus your attention on the side with more power. Trying to "equalize" the blame all the time tends to just help the status quo.

 

[Triggafinga]

This argument is absolutely fine by me. If you want to discuss how much verbal abuse an officer should take before hauling someone off to prison that's fine. That's a fair discussion to have.

But the "racist cop" argument has been all but completely undermined at this point. Right now the knee-jerk professor is the last bastion of stupid.

Because you only believe the cop's version of the story, Gates is the only one to blame? you also refuse to believe that race played ANY factor on the arrest? You also believe that racial profiling should not be talked about although its a very serious complaint black people have because you hold these beliefs? ................. ok

 

[vandalvideo]

Just because the courts fail at interpreting the Constitution doesn't make my argument invalid.

According to Black Law, a priveledge is a type of right. It is a sub-taxonomy of right. Right is the parent taxonomy;

1. That which is proper udner law, morality, or ethics. 2. Something that is due to a person by just claim, legal guarantee, or moral principle 3. A power, priveledge, or immunity secured to a person by law. 4. A legally enforceable claim that another will do or will not do a given act; A recognized and protected interest the violation of which is wrong. 5. The interest, claim, or ownership that one has in tangible or intangible property

I don't see the qualifier inalienable or unrestrictable here. According to Black Law, a right can most assuredly be non-absolute.

 

[NumberTwo]

This argument is absolutely fine by me. If you want to discuss how much verbal abuse an officer should take before hauling someone off to prison that's fine. That's a fair discussion to have.

But the "racist cop" argument has been all but completely undermined at this point. Right now the knee-jerk professor is the last bastion of stupid.

Well, it's not fair to call him stupid, because like all human beings we all have knee jerk reactions. Put yourself in his shoes, even with him being in the wrong here. He was tired, under the weather, and completely caught of guard. It happened at the absolute worst moment. We have all had those moments, and will continue to. Him believing that he is entitled to an apology is valid as well, but of course not if that is going to be the only exchange of an apology.

 

[harSon]

Well, it's not fair to call him stupid, because like all human beings we all have knee jerk reactions. Put yourself in his shoes, even with him being in the wrong here. He was tired, under the weather, and completely caught of guard. * It happened at the absolute worst moment. We have all had those moments, and will continue to. Him believing that he is entitled to an apology is valid, but not if that is the only exchange of an apology.

* Was born in 1950

 

[mckmas8808]

Same. I was very surprised Obama got caught up in that question but at the same time if he half-assed it he would have also received a lot of blow back from blacks. Word of advise Mr. President, stick to the prompter.

Obama is smart as shit and gives great interviews without prompters. This notion that he's a dumbass without is unfounded.

And when did this "he needs a prompter" crap start anyway? Isn't it known that all President read while giving speeches?

 

[nyong]

Because you only believe the cop's version of the story, Gates is the only one to blame? you also refuse to believe that race played ANY factor on the arrest? You also believe that racial profiling should not be talked about although its a very serious complaint black people have because you hold these beliefs? ................. ok

I have no evidence from either the cop's past or the incident itself that race played a factor: none, zip, zero. You might as well argue that the flying spaghetti monster played a role.

Gate's problem was with the fact that he was ID'ed in the first place. And his insanity and subsequent arrest stemmed from that. Most rational people decided a long time ago that it's quite plausible for an officer to request one's identity if they have reports of a break-in at that exact address. It's not rocket science to see the logic at play here.

And why are you bringing up racial profiling? The cop was responding to a 9-11 call, not pulling over vehicles.

 

[WickedAngel]

Obama is smart as shit and gives great interviews without prompters. This notion that he's a dumbass without is unfounded.

And when did this "he needs a prompter" crap start anyway? Isn't it known that all President read while giving speeches?

That nonsense has been going on since the primaries.

 

[nyong]

Well, it's not fair to call him stupid, because like all human beings we all have knee jerk reactions. Put yourself in his shoes, even with him being in the wrong here. He was tired, under the weather, and completely caught of guard. It happened at the absolute worst moment. We have all had those moments, and will continue to. Him believing that he is entitled to an apology is valid as well, but of course not if that is going to be the only exchange of an apology.

This may well be the case. And if he comes out and recognizes his role in this fiasco, I'll respect him for it. I don't necessarily need an explicit apology from him. He certainly needs to backpedal with the racism stuff, though. Especially considering his position at Harvard.

 

[mckmas8808]

He certainly implied it.

He said that the cop acted "stupidly" and went on to describe the plight of minorities in the country. He intentionally drew a connection between this particular incident and the history of racist law enforcement in the United States.

He never implied the cop was racist. Actually funny enough he said he didn't know if race placed a role in the incident. :lol

 

[nyong]

He never implied the cop was racist. Actually funny enough he said he didn't know if race placed a role in the incident. :lol

You seem to have skipped over a large part of this very discussion.

 

[Triggafinga]

Obama is smart as shit and gives great interviews without prompters. This notion that he's a dumbass without is unfounded.

And when did this "he needs a prompter" crap start anyway? Isn't it known that all President read while giving speeches?

Being a new poster (not only a lurker) has brought me a new way at looking at another person's post. Some post because they dislike Obama and some post because they do not like a certain policy or circumstance that Obama was involved in. The charge that he needs a prompter is ridiculous. Personally i think he's alot better without one. He becomes more professorial to me. To anyone who has short term memory loss here's a link

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OEP1ax2XM5M&feature=related

 

[Triggafinga]

You seem to have skipped over a large part of this very discussion.

you seem to ignore the fact that some on gaf argued that it was a two part question the reporter gave therefore, you assuming OBAMA linked the 2 is not fact but your POV.

 

[NumberTwo]

co-sign ... will the media co-sign, that is the question. I say the right wing will have a field day and further hurt their chances to gain any seats in the north. Good luck GOP

...and this is where my HATRED for the manipulation of emotions that the media perpetuates. Not just Fox News(even though they are the No. 1 offender), but CNN and others as well. They construct their opinion pieces so that your are either on THIS SIDE or THIS SIDE. When they could be taking the rational direction in understanding that this is not a black and white issue. And people are lapping it up and saying the most inane, asinine things. They are purposefully splintering race relations in exchange for ratings, and reactions. It drives me crazy.

 

[nyong]

you seem to ignore the fact that some on gaf argued that it was a two part question the reporter gave therefore, you assuming OBAMA linked the 2 is not fact but your POV.

It's not just my point of view as Obama felt he messed up badly enough to justify an apology to the arresting officer and publicly acknowledge his errors. Keep in mind this is after the officer refused to apologize for his actions. Whether Obama intended to reinforce the professor's claims is irrelevant, as that's how it was taken. Both in the media, and within this very thread.

Personally, I don't think his choice of words was coincidental. I'm happy that he at least backpedaled and clarified his remarks, though.

Racism should have never even entered into the discussion on Gate's arrest, other than to point out that the professor is a knee-jerk lunatic. This isn't some poor dude yanked out of his own home and arrested without cause-- he came unglued, following and provoking the officer until he was arrested.

 

[WickedAngel]

That's the problem with feeling the need to cover both sides of the story as far as the media is concerned. Some complaints and opinions are so absurd that they don't deserve legitimate coverage. Every issue can't be split neatly right down the middle.

 

[mckmas8808]

This is the equivalent of saying "I'm not racist, but...."

The first part does not negate what follows.

Racism should have never even entered into the discussion on Gate's arrest, other than to point out that the professor is a knee-jerk lunatic. This isn't some poor dude yanked out of his own home and arrested without cause-- he came unglued, following and provoking the officer until he was arrested.

So should the President act like he doesn't follow what's being said on the news channels and blog post? He wanted to discuss the entirey on the conversation that was going on.

 

[Triggafinga]

It's not just my point of view as Obama felt he messed up badly enough to justify an apology to the arresting officer and publicly acknowledge his errors. Keep in mind this is after the officer refused to apologize for his actions. Whether Obama intended to reinforce the professor's claims is irrelevant, as that's how it was taken. Both in the media, and within this very thread.

Personally, I don't think his choice of words was coincidental. I'm happy that he at least backpedaled and clarified his remarks, though.

If you listen carefully to what he said, he did not backpedal because he injected RACE into the case. He backpedaled because his comments added to the media frenzy and painted one side better than the other. So lets agree that were both happy he back peddled and watch with laughs and tears when they all congregate at the white house for some beer and Stevie wonder? He practically lives at the whitehouse lol

 

[mckmas8808]

I can't wait to see the internet flooded later tonight & over the weekend with clips of O'reilly,Beck,Limbaugh,etc... commenting on this. :lol

Did you see what Limbaugh said about Obama? He called the President an angry black man that did something bad to white people.

:lol

It's only funny because, it'll be good for Obama if Limbaugh becomes the #1 story next.

 

[mckmas8808]

That's the problem with feeling the need to cover both sides of the story as far as the media is concerned. Some complaints and opinions are so absurd that they don't deserve legitimate coverage. Every issue can't be split neatly right down the middle.

I agree! Some issues are heatly debated and deserve 50-50 time. And some are so stupid that the other side really doesn't deserve the time of day to speak.

If you listen carefully to what he said, he did not backpedal because he injected RACE into the case. He backpedaled because his comments added to the media frenzy and painted one side better than the other. So lets agree that were both happy he back peddled and watch with laughs and tears when they all congregate at the white house for some beer and Stevie wonder? He practically lives at the whitehouse lol

:lol

Hell yeah! I believe Stevie has a room at the Whitehouse too. But I'm really happy that Obama said what he said today. It should cool down over the weekend. Hell I'll even like to see Gates and Crawley go to the whitehouse and shake hands over the incident. I think it would make race relations stronger if Gates apologized for calling the cop racist and Crawley apologized for hurting Gates' feelings in any way.

It'll get the press off his lawn and get the heat off his back too.

 

[empty vessel]

I'm hoping that the Harvard professor's credibility is called into question from this as well, and it threatens his research funding. Maybe we'll see something vaguely resembling an apology from him too.

Yes, because having your civil rights violated by the police should have consequences, dammit! It's difficult for me to believe people like you actually exist in life.

I have no evidence from either the cop's past or the incident itself that race played a factor: none, zip, zero. You might as well argue that the flying spaghetti monster played a role.

That's because you choose to remain willfully ignorant about race and how it influences us, undoubtedly because you benefit culturally, socially, and economically from wallowing in this ignorance. The evidence we have is that Gates--a witness--accused the officer of acting in the manner he did because of his race. Now, you may discount this evidence, even entirely, but that you think there is no evidence may very well say more about you than about the evidence. I see no reason to disbelieve Gates's perception of how he was treated.

White supremacy is, unfortunately, resurgent. This thread--chock full of people denying race had anything to do with this and offering apologetics on behalf of a police officer who arrested a black man for no lawful reason--is evidence of that tremendously sad fact.

 

[harSon]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-ridley/gates-says-what-a-lot-of_b_244571.html

 

[<+)O Robido O(+>]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-ridley/gates-says-what-a-lot-of_b_244571.html

Excellent.

 

[harSon]

Excellent.

This one's pretty damned steamy as well: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/keith-boykin/white-men-cant-judge_b_244358.html

 

[Askani]

a police officer who arrested a black man for no lawful reason

So is that what it's down to? White person did something to a black person and it's racist? Doesn't matter that race wasn't the driving factor and motivation for the action? Really?

 

[empty vessel]

So is that what it's down to? White person did something to a black person and it's racist? Doesn't matter that race wasn't the driving factor and motivation for the action? Really?

Gates, a black man, perceived it was a motivating factor. Implicit in your question is that you think black people are too stupid to accurately perceive when they are being treated differently because of their race. Do you believe that?

 

[Ignis Fatuus]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-ridley/gates-says-what-a-lot-of_b_244571.html

That "article" made me throw up in my mouth.

I don't even know where to start. Trying to tie this into the birther fiasco? Linking it to the Fugitive Slave Act? It's not enough to play the race card anymore, they have to throw the whole fucking deck at you.

Gates, a black man, perceived it was a motivating factor. Implicit in your question is that you think black people are too stupid to accurately perceive when they are being treated differently because of their race. Do you believe that?

I think it's fair to say that Gates had a big racial chip on his shoulder and that intelligence had nothing to do with it. I like how you tried to frame that, though.

 

[Flo_Evans]

Gates, a black man, perceived it was a motivating factor. Implicit in your question is that you think black people are too stupid to accurately perceive when they are being treated differently because of their race. Do you believe that?

So simply believing you are being discriminated against means its true?

How does Gates know he was treated any differently than the officer would treat any other person? People always say oh you aren't black you don't understand what its like. Well sorry do you understand what its like to be white? No not really.

Hell the last cop thread we had was some 60 year old white lady getting tasered for not signing a traffic ticket. In my experience cops are pretty much dicks to everyone they meet.

 

[empty vessel]

I think it's fair to say that Gates had a big racial chip on his shoulder and that intelligence had nothing to do with it. I like how you tried to frame that, though.

Oh, it's fair to say that, is it? Based on what? That he's black? This is your defense?

So simply believing you are being discriminated against means its true?

It's evidence, isn't it? The only way to discount it out of hand, however--as much of GAF has done--is to start from a presumption that black people are too stupid to be able to identify discriminatory conduct when it is directed at them.

 

[laserbeam]

Oh, it's fair to say that, is it? Based on what? That he's black? This is your defense?

Based on the fucking fact he was asked to step down off his porch by a Police Officer and he immediatly started ranting about its because he is a black man in america. Never mind the fact the Officer specified he was responding to a break in call.


How fucking stupid are you going to pretend to be?