Was Rosa Parks a criminal or a victim?
Run away slaves?
Go on. Let's follow this train back to the station.
I wonder if you legitimately think that being gay and being black are basically the same as shooting heroin.
Was Rosa Parks a criminal or a victim?
Run away slaves?
Go on. Let's follow this train back to the station.
So then move, otherwise you are a criminal.
What's race have to do with committing acts that were considered to be illegal at the time?I wonder if you legitimately think that being gay and being black are basically the same as shooting heroin.
I wonder if you legitimately think I'm going to ignore your poor attempt at dodging the question of whether an illegal act renders someone incapable of being a victim.I wonder if you legitimately think that being gay and being black are basically the same as shooting heroin.
I wonder if you legitimately think I'm going to ignore your poor attempt at dodging the question of whether an illegal act renders someone incapable of being a victim.
You want to try again? Here, I'll post another gif for you.
You're still dodging.Not inherently. Obviously one can't choose to be black or be gay, thus they can be the victim of unfair laws. But you choose to shoot heroin or do meth. There is an obvious difference and trying to compare one's choice to do illegal drugs versus something that simply isn't a choice seems disingenuous and silly.
Not inherently. Obviously one can't choose to be black or be gay, thus they can be the victim of unfair laws. But you choose to shoot heroin or do meth. There is an obvious difference and trying to compare one's choice to do illegal drugs versus something that simply isn't a choice seems disingenuous and silly.
You're still dodging.
I did not claim it was illegal for Rosa Parks to be African American. I am drawing your attention to the fact that it was illegal for her to occupy a reserved seat on a bus. Was she victimized by this law, Euphor!a?
Answer the question.
Let's try this a third time.
So if a part of society actively uses something like pot on a standard and recreational basis, and then the people in power decide one day to just make it illegal, the members of that section of society should just stop just because the people in power say so?
I never said it was impossible for a criminal to be victimized by a law, I literally just said the opposite.
Maybe one day that won't be the case and x and y will be legal, but until then you are a criminal, not a victim.
Are you seriously going to misrepresent my post by cutting out the part where I was clearly referencing illegal drugs? You're better than that, or maybe you're not...
According to your own original argument, it doesn't matter. If it's illegal, you're a criminal.
Are African Americans being victimized by discriminatory enforcement of drug laws, Euphor!a?Are you seriously going to misrepresent my post by cutting out the part where I was clearly referencing illegal drugs? You're better than that, or maybe you're not...
Are African Americans being victimized by discriminatory enforcement of drug laws, Euphor!a?
Is that really an argument? That's a fact.
So you're just going straight literal. Fine. Then that means that Rosa Parks was a criminal, and so were all those people arrested for sodomy.
They are disproportionately charged and arrested for drug crimes, this is a fact and I am not disputing it. They are however choosing to do those drugs, so no, they are not victims in this instance.
If you do something illegal, you are a criminal. I don't know what you want me to tell you. I have already conceded that it is possible for unfair laws to victimize people, just not in the instance of choosing to do drugs.
....I genuinely don't understand how this could possibly be construed as victim blaming, the drug users are the ones breaking the law. Unless the argument is that the drugs were planted or simply made-up, they are not a victim, but a criminal. Though, maybe we should arrest more white people.
But they are only criminals because of a corrupt State. You could definally pose an argument about criminality of drug dealers but for the User; in an upstanding society they should be treated as victims as taking drugs is far different from other crimes that are punishable.If you do something illegal, you are a criminal. I don't know what you want me to tell you. I have already conceded that it is possible for unfair laws to victimize people, just not in the instance of choosing to do drugs.
Others have already made good points, but I'd like to mention that there's more to this than simply "choosing to do drugs".
If you do something illegal, you are a criminal. I don't know what you want me to tell you. I have already conceded that it is possible for unfair laws to victimize people, just not in the instance of choosing to do drugs.
If you do something illegal, you are a criminal. I don't know what you want me to tell you. I have already conceded that it is possible for unfair laws to victimize people, just not in the instance of choosing to do drugs.
Not inherently. Obviously one can't choose to be black or be gay, thus they can be the victim of unfair laws. But you choose to shoot heroin or do meth. There is an obvious difference and trying to compare one's choice to do illegal drugs versus something that simply isn't a choice seems disingenuous and silly.
If you do something illegal, you are a criminal. I don't know what you want me to tell you. I have already conceded that it is possible for unfair laws to victimize people, just not in the instance of choosing to do drugs.
Here, I'll get real personal so that you might catch a glimpse into the mind of a drug user.
I am a normal member of society who suffers from severe anxiety attacks due to my current job and mental health. I used to battle daily with depression and stress, but ever since I started smoking, I have become more productive, have gained back my mental faculties, and I am currently up for a really fantastic job opportunity. I can't move because of the various stresses involved in that, as well I have set up a rather nice life for myself in Pennsylvania.
I'm not addicted to pot, I stop every so often, even for weeks on end. But I will continue doing it because I'd rather not fall down that hole again.
Because the last time that happened, I ended up in the hospital. Twice.
I choose to use drugs because they have helped me become a better person and have improved my life significantly. And I use them even though they are illegal.
I won't give you any other anecdotes because that's all they are. I know too many people who went down my path, using drugs to better themselves, and were then arrested because the thing that would help them was illegal.
Here's a fun change up. Do you believe that illegal immigrants are exploited in jobs like farming even though they "choose" to work there?Obviously there are many simple or complex reasons one gets to that point. But ultimately, yes, it is a choice.
I appreciate it, but I don't need any more glimpses into the mind of a drug user, I've had more than enough for several lifetimes.
So you have a negative opinion of all drug users?
Here's a fun change up. Do you believe that illegal immigrants are exploited in jobs like farming even though they "choose" to work there?
I'm posting this image again so certain people can have some goddamn perspective.
This shows that all 50 states are racially discriminatory in their policing, with black Americans arrested at levels from 2x to well over 20x as much as white people for the exact same shit. The majority of the states are sitting at well over 3x.
To think Rachael Leigh Cook's fucking commercial making you feel weird is an issue worth discussing for fucking hours today instead of these discrepancies shows us the obvious, ironic truth in LizardKing's idea that white people just don't give a fuck unless it's about them.
I appreciate that you don't dispute it. Your conceding this point means we don't have to argue over whether the war on drugs violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Which renders this remark:They are disproportionately charged and arrested for drug crimes, this is a fact and I am not disputing it.
...Wrong.They are however choosing to do those drugs, so no, they are not victims in this instance.
No, I don't.
I legitimately have no idea.
Then why brush off my post by saying you don't need anymore stories?
Drug usage is much more complicated than just choosing to use it. You seem hard set on not giving any ear or legitimacy to the idea that drug users may be victims persecuted by the government and society.
I was sure it was her playing Nebula in GotG till I saw in the credits it was Karen Gillan.
It's a huge waste of everyone's time to argue with someone who'd rather win by semantics than to critically think about the subject, and I say this after arguing with LizardKing all morning.
Yeah well. I at least think this thread highlights why it's so difficult bringing about change in America even in the face of damning data.If only they had listened...
Yeah well. I at least think this thread highlights why it's so difficult bringing about change in America even in the face of damning data.
I appreciate that you don't dispute it. Your conceding this point means we don't have to argue over whether the war on drugs violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Which renders this remark:
...Wrong.
You see, Euphor!a, well over a hundred years ago the Supreme Court recognized in Yick Wo v. Hopkins that racist, discriminatory laws applied with "with an evil eye and an unequal hand" were unjust. At the time, bigoted white Californians were arresting Chinese Americans for breaking a law crafted to target their communities and enforced with extreme prejudice. The court wrote, ""The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution is not confined to the protection of citizens. It says: 'Nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.'"
So, here we are. A century and some change later. If the 14th Amendment rights of African Americans are being violated, which you admit they are, how are those arrested due to selective enforcement not as much victims as the "criminals" the Supreme Court vindicated in 1886?
Edit: Actually I don't want to phrase that as a question. Let me state plainly: You're wrong. In an era where black men and all women could yet not vote, USSC was cognizant enough to establish the fucking obvious fact that selective enforcement victimizes. This is a stupid debate, and yours is a narrowminded opinion.
Then why brush off my post by saying you don't need anymore stories?
Drug usage is much more complicated than just choosing to use it. You seem hard set on not giving any ear or legitimacy to the idea that drug users may be victims persecuted by the government and society.