Response and Comments to Amicus and his dislike of all minorities:

[IrezumiKiss]

Then by your logic, SPA, statistics of any kind, averages, average means, bell curves, numbers of any sort, are totally useless.

That fits in quite nicely with the liberal mantra of 'no absolutes' everything is relative, there is no truth, no reality and everyone's opinion is equal.

No wonder you folks prefer to remain high all the time.

Amicus...

When it comes to human beings, there are no absolutes, Ami Winehouse.

For example, it isn't an absolute that you won't get hit by a drunken driver on your next outing to the liquor store. And it isn't an absolute that you WILL get hit by a drunken driver on your next outing to the liquor store, either.

Now, is it an absolute that you wear the same brown blazer every day as in your avatar? Hmmm...

IrezumiKiss...

 

[SlickTony]

I think we can all agree that some men are smarter than some women. I think we can also agree that some women are smarter than some men. I think we can also agree that many men let their small head do the thinking for them, while women do not do the equivalent.

Unfortunately, I don't think that's true all the time.

 

[amicus]

Zumi, I suggest your mammaries are weighing on your lumbar, criticizing my avatar...thas all ya got...gads...



ami

 

[IrezumiKiss]

Zumi, I suggest your mammaries are weighing on your lumbar, criticizing my avatar...thas all ya got...gads...



ami

I was just giving you an example of those "non absolutes" you were disdaining. I'm sure you have an off-white velour jacket in your wardrobe somewhere, yey? But we can go back discussing your possibly catching a Kennedy to the domepiece because you're a bigoted prick, if you'd like.

Zumi

 

[Boxlicker101]

Zumi, I suggest your mammaries are weighing on your lumbar, criticizing my avatar...thas all ya got...gads...



ami

May I point out that she did not criticize your AV; she merely asked about it. You, however, did criticize hers.

To answer the question thay you asked, Zumi: No, Ami has displayed several diferent AV's, even in the last few months.

 

[Svenskaflicka]

People, especially Americans, love to talk about how everyone have the freedom to say whatever he or she or it wants. Personally, I think you've been a tad seduced by the concept of "freedom". It' a pretty word, and I know it's a holy word to some people, but me, I prefer to take things one step further and ask: freedom of WHAT?

Should people be allowed to spew whatever shit they want just because they want to? I don't think so. Luckily, I live in a country where the legislators agree with me, and that's why you can't say EVERYTHING you want in Sweden.

You can go out into the street and scream at the top of your lungs "the king is ugly!" or "the government's politics are unfair!", and no-one will arrest you. But if you shout "let's kill all the blacks!" or "gay people should be killed!" - then you WILL be arrested.

The freedom of speech doesn't give you permission to say things that promotes hatred and/or violence towards a whole group of people, based on their ethnic, religious, or sexual belonging.

To post a lot of drivel about minorities in the name of freedom of speech, is to abuse the freedom of speech - and I'm sad to see that so many of you are buying it.

Would you also defend a child pornographer, saying that the freedom of press grants him the right to publish magazines full of child porn?

Before you answer, pretty, pretty please, come up with a GOOD answer to WHY that would be different - because I know that's what you're gonna try and say.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

And we're delighted youre in Sweden.

 

[sr71plt]

I'm not sure any society has justification to be smug about how they approach freedom of expression.

The last time I wafted through Sweden there seemed to be about as much in the newspapers about rampant, unchecked child pornography as there is in the States, for instance.

And I visited my folks in Norway twice during their U.S. Embassy stints there ten years apart. The first time at cocktail parties, I had to endure smug sermonizing about the racial divide in the State. The second time I visited, blacks and Indians had found Norway and taken many of the service jobs--and I heard racial slurs from white Norwegians that would curl your toes.

 

[rgraham666]

A cynical blog post I wrote on freedom.

 

[SweetPrettyAss]

People, especially Americans, love to talk about how everyone have the freedom to say whatever he or she or it wants. Personally, I think you've been a tad seduced by the concept of "freedom". It' a pretty word, and I know it's a holy word to some people, but me, I prefer to take things one step further and ask: freedom of WHAT?

Should people be allowed to spew whatever shit they want just because they want to? I don't think so. Luckily, I live in a country where the legislators agree with me, and that's why you can't say EVERYTHING you want in Sweden.

You can go out into the street and scream at the top of your lungs "the king is ugly!" or "the government's politics are unfair!", and no-one will arrest you. But if you shout "let's kill all the blacks!" or "gay people should be killed!" - then you WILL be arrested.

The freedom of speech doesn't give you permission to say things that promotes hatred and/or violence towards a whole group of people, based on their ethnic, religious, or sexual belonging.

To post a lot of drivel about minorities in the name of freedom of speech, is to abuse the freedom of speech - and I'm sad to see that so many of you are buying it.

Would you also defend a child pornographer, saying that the freedom of press grants him the right to publish magazines full of child porn?

Before you answer, pretty, pretty please, come up with a GOOD answer to WHY that would be different - because I know that's what you're gonna try and say.

You can't say whatever you want in the USA either. There is the cliche about yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theater and there are laws against slander and libel. You can go out in the street and yell that the king of Swedn is ugly, or that the president is ugly, or that government policies are wrong or unfair. If you have a sound truck and you drive through a residential area with these sentiments blaring out at top volume, you will probably be arrested for disturbing the peace. The same thing would happen if you drove this truck in the same place while extolling the virtues of baseball and apple pie.

There are also laws against inciting to riot. If Amicus had a newspaper, he could editorialize the same sentiments he is posting here and they would not be illegal. He could also air them on his radio talk show and it would be legal since they are expressions of his opinion. People would dislike him and he might be subject to retaliation, such as rocks through his windows or slashed tires but such retaliation would actually be an illegal attack on his civil rights.

If he started agitating violence against gays or any other recognizable group, that could be different. If his newspaper called for killing or beating up all homosexuals or n------, etc. that would be a violation of the law. Sometimes this is a near thing. There was a website that printed the names and addresses of doctors or clinics who provide abortions and when somebody is killed or some place is destroyed, they celebrate this by printing a big "X" through that person's name or that place. They had to shut down operations but I don't think anybody was convicted of any kind of incitement, although somebody probably should have been.

Pornographic photos of children are illegal but written or drawn child pornography is not. It is only illegal it a real person is involved.

 

[gauchecritic]

Just a marker.

and the word masochist for anyone that remembers that post.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

SPA

What we construe as freedom of speech is a recent occurrence. It evolved for almost 200 years.

When the Constitution was adopted freedom of speech meant no prior restraint. It did not protect you at all once the words were out of your mouth.

 

[SweetPrettyAss]

SPA

What we construe as freedom of speech is a recent occurrence. It evolved for almost 200 years.

When the Constitution was adopted freedom of speech meant no prior restraint. It did not protect you at all once the words were out of your mouth.

Are you sure of that? I remember reading about the Alien and Sedition Acts, passed during the John Adams administration. Those laws made it illegal to say anything bad against the government or any government official. They were later declared unconstitutional because they violated the First Amendment. Maybe that Supreme Court decision is where Freedom of speech actually springs from.

 

[SweetPrettyAss]

Then by your logic, SPA, statistics of any kind, averages, average means, bell curves, numbers of any sort, are totally useless.

That fits in quite nicely with the liberal mantra of 'no absolutes' everything is relative, there is no truth, no reality and everyone's opinion is equal.

No wonder you folks prefer to remain high all the time.

Amicus...

As an accountant, I certainly think numbers are important. Sometimes averages, etc. can be meaningful but when you are talking about people, I think individuality is more important than membership in some specific group, even a large one such as race, gender, national origin, etc.

There definitely are some absolutes. Some things are relative, such as poverty and intelligence. Some people might think they are rich but, compared to somebody like Bill Gates, they would be considered poor. Some people might think they are poor but, when compared to street beggars in India, they are quite well off. Some people might think they are intelligent but, when compared with Mensa, they are just slightly above average.

 

[matriarch]

exactly, i find amicus reprehensible, but i would never presume to censor him.

Exactly.

Which is why, after several years of reading his pointless but deliberately inflammatory crap, he went on ignore. It takes a lot for me to use that facility, but it feels a whole lot better now.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

SPA

The Alien and Sedition Act wasnt declared unconstitutional until recent times.

There are some excellent books that chronicle the history of free speech in America, and correct the conventional wisdom.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

I'm not sure any society has justification to be smug about how they approach freedom of expression.

The last time I wafted through Sweden there seemed to be about as much in the newspapers about rampant, unchecked child pornography as there is in the States, for instance.

Wasn't it Sweden where all the child porn was published in the 70's? Oh no, that was Denmark... "Climax" magazine, I think. Still, Sweden produced child porn back then, too.

That was after we'd said it was a big "no no" over here.

Maya Angelou once said, "When you know better, you do better." God, I wish that were really true for everyone.

 

[lance gt]

Just a reminder how Amicus is nothing but a shit-disturber and his opinions don't matter

 

[Stella_Omega]

When i took my sabbatical from AH, i deleted my entire iggy list, which had gotten fairly long-- 's how I knew I needed a break.

The first time I returned, two names went right back on-- JBJ and Ami.

Most regulars have Ami on ig, even the ones that don't ignore johnson.

 

[lesbiaphrodite]

He represents a sad, uninspiring, narrow-minded but vocal segment of a dying breed. I don't read him, and I don't advise anyone else to either.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Ayn Rand died for his sins.

 

[Teloz]

He represents a sad, uninspiring, narrow-minded but vocal segment of a dying breed. I don't read him, and I don't advise anyone else to either.

He's only so nasty because he was rejected by his father, Adolph, so he's trying to outdo him; and failing; miserably!

 

[fiammetta]

From Amicus: "Everyone knows (that 70 percent of blacks are born out of wedlock and) that the largest welfare and food stamp recipients are black."
If that's true (and I'm not sure it is), wouldn't that be the result of their lower than average socioeconomic status? Which is probably the result of their own parents low socioeconomic status- think about it, especially in decades past, how easy is/was it to rise above the socioeconomic status of your parents? Not very, for any race. And we all know that because of racism and discrimination, while not as rampant now, caused many blacks (I'm guessing in about the 1960s or 70s, most recent/evident) to have less money. (discrimination in jobs=worse paying jobs for those discriminated against=less money for them). So why is it so hard to believe that if blacks do make up the largest part of wellfare recipients, it's because of past (and possible present) discrimination? Hope I didn't lose anyone there, I tried to explain what I mean.

 

[sadangel]

Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2008 (Published by the Census Bureau)

I'll snip a few little things that will put a hole in Amicus' theory that Blacks make up the largest population on welfare and food-stamps. I would assume that most will take the Census Bureau as a reliable and accredited source of information.

Everyone knows that 70 percent of blacks are born out of wedlock and that the largest welfare and food stamp recipients are black.

Data is referring to 2008

Whites: Total number below poverty level: 240,548
White (Non-Hispanic): Total number below poverty level :196,940
Blacks: Total number below poverty level: 37,966
Asian: Total number below poverty level: 13,310
Hispanic (any race) Total number below poverty level: 47,398

Between 1994-2003 the percentage of Whites on Food Stamp Assistance was 70.9% The percentage of blacks was 58.2%
Information from the 2008 Indicators of Welfare Dependence by the US Dept. of Health and Human Services.

What Amicus left out of his statement about 70% of black babies being born out of wedlock is that over the last 20 years, that has been declining whereas, the number of white babies born out of wedlock has increased by approximately 38%

Everyone knows that those who chose to stay in New Orleans were black. "This quote was by Amicus"

The claim by Amicus that all the ones who stayed behind in NOLA were black is blatantly false. Yes, I am certain that a large number who stayed behind were, but it was not EVERYONE who stayed behind was black. A large number of those who stayed behind were very poor, had no transportation or had medical issues that made it difficult to leave. Yet, some chose to stay behind because they did not think it would be as bad as it was. There were school buses that could have been used by the Mayor of NOLA but were not, there was an Amtrak train that pulled out on the morning of August 9, before Katrina hit. It was empty. They had offered to take as many as could fit on their train, but Nagin (Nola's Mayor) refused. Two weeks after the fact, he claims the offer was not made. Therefore, Amicus' statement that ALL were black in a bold faced lie. He has NOTHING to back up that claim. I challenge him to find it and to provide it from a legitimate source. (Census Bureau or Government statistics would be my preferred source)


I wonder why it is that Amicus demanded proof of all this, yet he posted a whole bunch of statistics without ANY proof to back it up, save his own word that he found the information on the internet and/or library. Perhaps Amicus should do as he demands of others and provide the proof to his statements that Elizabetht quoted. Otherwise, I see all his words as only that and not any kind of statistics to be believed.

They aren't to be believed, as I have already refuted the most blatant lies among them.

 

[amicus]

Another year old thread rejuvenated? The purpose being?

Perhaps someone would go back even more, to 2003, when I first posted on this forum?

You will be delighted to see that my stand on issues has remained stable over the years.

Can you say the same for your opinions? Do they remain stable or wax and wane in the situational circumstances you find yourself in?

Thanks again for bringing back to public notice some of my thoughts.

Amicus