Woman arrested after racist rant on tram

[Mr. X]

No. I did not say that. Each individual in the group retains there rights at all times. The group as a collective does not have rights.

You misunderstood me. So i'll make it simpler for you.

[Begin simple explanation]
So your saying that, overall, Blacks (As in every African grouped together) shouldn't have rights?
[/End simple explanation}

Does this also mean that protesters have no rights? After all, they are a group. If the group lacks rights then by your logic it would be acceptable to deny individual rights as long as everyone in that group is denied those rights as the denying is not focused on denying the rights of the individual, rather the rights of the group as a whole. Should they decide to leave the group, then they regain those rights as they are no longer apart of a collective of individuals.

Does this mean that, overall, Americans do not have rights? In this case, Americans is a singular group comprised of everyone who lives in this country. Using your logic, American's don't.

While I agree that groups shouldn't get special rights, I do believe that whatever rights that the members have in common should carry over to the group as a whole.

 

[KingCharizard]

You misunderstood me. So i'll make it simpler for you.

[begin-simple-explanation-that-even-a-mentally-deficient-person-can-understand]
So your saying that, overall, Blacks (As in every African grouped together) shouldn't have rights?
[/end-simple-explanation-that-even-a-mentally-deficient-person-can-understand]

Does this also mean that protesters have no rights? After all, they are a group. If the group lacks rights then by your logic it would be acceptable to deny individual rights as long as everyone in that group is denied those rights as the denying is not focused on denying the rights of the individual, rather the rights of the group as a whole. Should they decide to leave the group, then they regain those rights as they are no longer apart of a collective of individuals.

Does this mean that, overall, Americans do not have rights? In this case, Americans is a singular group comprised of everyone who lives in this country. Using your logic, American's don't.

While I agree that groups shouldn't get special rights, I do believe that whatever rights that the members have in common should carry over to the group as a whole.

your completely flipping what she said, so i am going to try to clarify and feel free to correct me at any time, what he said is a group does not have rights each individual does, he is correct. Every individual in a group has their own rights, even as a group their rights remain the same(individual). you can arrest a group of protesters but they all each have their individual rights, they wont be tried as a group they wont be held accountable as a group, however the individual will be held responsible for their actions and the actions of the group. As an american I do have rights, but in your example Americans when grouped together have different rights, your half right. Every american has individual rights so therefore when grouped together yes they have right as a group. However there is no collective group rights. If you believe I am wrong and there are group rights then please tell me some collective rights for Americans as a group...

 

[Oryx]

your completely flipping what he said, so i am going to try to clarify and feel free to correct me at any time, what he said is a group does not have rights each individual does, he is correct. Every individual in a group has their own rights, even as a group their rights remain the same(individual). you can arrest a group of protesters but they all each have their individual rights, they wont be tried as a group they wont be held accountable as a group, however the individual will be held responsible for their actions and the actions of the group. As an american I do have rights, but in your example Americans when grouped together have different rights, your half right. Every american has individual rights so therefore when grouped together yes they have right as a group. However there is no collective group rights. If you believe I am wrong and there are group rights then please tell me some collective rights for Americans as a group...

Freaky is a girl.

But the problem with "not giving groups rights as groups" is that usually when rights are taken away and they need to be fought for, they're taken from one group. For example, when women couldn't vote - the rights of the group of American women were violated, and they needed to fight to get the group rights back. I understand the idea that no group should have more rights than another group inherently because of the group, but in the same vein groups based on things you can't control (sexuality, race, gender) should have equal rights. Freaky, it's kind of like the way you said laws against free speech should be content-neutral - people that lobby for laws for a certain group generally aren't looking for "make me superior to others", they're just looking for whatever they're trying to change to be race-neutral or gender-neutral or sexuality-neutral across the board.

@Mr. X: I think it would do you well to remember in debates that just because someone disagrees with you doesn't make them an idiot, and just because they disagree on a detail it doesn't mean they disagree overall. Freaky does a lot of "I agree in principle but not in how you think it should be carried out", for example agreeing that gay marriage should be legal but that it should be a state issue and not a federal issue (I think that's your stance Freaky?). That doesn't mean she disagrees with the principle in general.

 

[KingCharizard]

Freaky is a girl.

But the problem with "not giving groups rights as groups" is that usually when rights are taken away and they need to be fought for, they're taken from one group. For example, when women couldn't vote - the rights of the group of American women were violated, and they needed to fight to get the group rights back. I understand the idea that no group should have more rights than another group inherently because of the group, but in the same vein groups based on things you can't control (sexuality, race, gender) should have equal rights. Freaky, it's kind of like the way you said laws against free speech should be content-neutral - people that lobby for laws for a certain group generally aren't looking for "make me superior to others", they're just looking for whatever they're trying to change to be race-neutral or gender-neutral or sexuality-neutral across the board.

Yeah I realized that after my post, but I must correct you and i hope you dont take this the wrong way.

For example, when women couldn't vote - the rights of the group of American women were violated, and they needed to fight to get the group rights back

Yeah they came together as a group and fought as a group but for their individual rights. Its the same for racism and the whole segregated stuff. While they fought as a group it was for each person's individual rights... So now as a group they can vote because each individual has the right to...

 

[Oryx]

Yeah I realized that after my post, but I must correct you and i hope you dont take this the wrong way.

Yeah they came together as a group and fought as a group but for their individual rights. Its the same for racism and the whole segregated stuff. While they fought as a group it was for each person's individual rights...

If women's right wasn't a group fighting for group rights, then what is a group fighting for group rights? I don't think I've ever seen a group fighting for group rights if race and sex aren't considered 'groups' - or rather, "women should have the right to vote" is not considered a 'group right'.

 

[KingCharizard]

If women's right wasn't a group fighting for group rights, then what is a group fighting for group rights? I don't think I've ever seen a group fighting for group rights if race and sex aren't considered 'groups' - or rather, "women should have the right to vote" is not considered a 'group right'.

Yeah they came together as a group and fought as a group but for their individual rights.

What part of this statement was unclear? Maybe I can try to clarify what i meant. Yes I said they fought as a group for the right to vote etc.. but the right is not given to a group its given to the individuals, even to this day women can vote. I am sure your not old enough to have participated in the group that fought for women's rights however your aloud to vote as an individual because of a groups effort. One person can not fight for the rights of many there for as a collective they are stronger. That is why the group comes together but its not just so that group of women or whatever has rights its so all women can have the same right as the guys...

this should help clarify https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individual_and_group_rights

 

[Oryx]

What part of this statement was unclear? Maybe I can try to clarify what i meant. Yes I said they fought as a group for the right to vote etc.. but the right is not given to a group its given to the individuals, even to this day women can vote. I am sure your not old enough to have participated in the group that fought for women's rights however your aloud to vote as an individual because of a groups effort. One person can not fight for the rights of many there for as a collective they are stronger. That is why the group comes together but its not just so that group of women or whatever has rights its so all women can have the same right as the guys...

No, you misunderstood my question. My question was, if women's rights, civil rights, and the like aren't groups fighting for group rights, then what is? Give me an example. What are you fighting against? What would a group have to be fighting for before it became something you would say "that's not a group fighting for each right individually, that's a group fighting for the rights of the group"?

 

[FreakyLocz14]

You misunderstood me. So i'll make it simpler for you.

[Begin simple explanation]
So your saying that, overall, Blacks (As in every African grouped together) shouldn't have rights?
[/End simple explanation}

Does this also mean that protesters have no rights? After all, they are a group. If the group lacks rights then by your logic it would be acceptable to deny individual rights as long as everyone in that group is denied those rights as the denying is not focused on denying the rights of the individual, rather the rights of the group as a whole. Should they decide to leave the group, then they regain those rights as they are no longer apart of a collective of individuals.

Does this mean that, overall, Americans do not have rights? In this case, Americans is a singular group comprised of everyone who lives in this country. Using your logic, American's don't.

While I agree that groups shouldn't get special rights, I do believe that whatever rights that the members have in common should carry over to the group as a whole.

Protesters do have rights. Each individual protester has the right to freedom of speech and freedom of assembly, and the right to not have excessive force used upon them by the state. Individuals within a group don't give up their rights just because they are now acting in a group, but they also don't gain any additional rights due to their group status.

 

[KingCharizard]

No, you misunderstood my question. My question was, if women's rights, civil rights, and the like aren't groups fighting for group rights, then what is? Give me an example. What are you fighting against? What would a group have to be fighting for before it became something you would say "that's not a group fighting for each right individually, that's a group fighting for the rights of the group"?

I never said they weren't fighting for their rights, but that is just it. Yeah their fighting for "group rights", but what does it boil down to in the end? Their fighting so each Individuals can have their rights, and yes this affects women as a whole(Group) but it still comes down to the fact that its really just a group of Individuals fight for what they want together. The group should have no special rights. If they are breaking the law they are to be dealt with accordingly, Individually no special treatment for anyone either as a group or as a Individual.

 

[Mr. X]

Modified my post. While I occasionally agree with Freaky, and sometimes believe that she is right, it just annoys the hell out of me when she either refuses to give a straight answer to a question or if she misinterprets a easily understandable point that I attempt to make. I'll try to keep the personal attacks at a minimum but really, thats part of my debate style. I make up for my lack of knowledge on subjects with pure aggression and manipulation of words.

But still, my point stands. A group is nothing more then a number of individuals with same goals. In those cases, the rights of the group are equal to the shared rights of it's members. That said, a group is usually fighting for some sort of change, and denying the group rights is a prime tactic for ensuring that the group never gains the needed power to force whatever change they are fighting for.

Edit @ Freaky

Thats what I don't agree with. While I agree with you that a group deserves no special rights, I do believe that they are entitled to whatever rights that all members of that group have in common. Do all individuals in the group have the right to assemble? Yes. In this case, the group has the right to assemble. Do the members have the right to freedom of speech? Yes. In this case, the group itself has the right to freedom of speech. Group rights vs individual rights is really a gray area. You can't just draw a line for it and say this is where the individual ends and the group begins.

 

[Oryx]

I never said they weren't fighting for their rights, but that is just it. Yeah their fighting for "group rights", but what does it boil down to in the end? Their fighting so each Individuals can have their rights, and yes this affects women as a whole(Group) but it still comes down to the fact that its really just a group of Individuals fight for what they want together. The group should have no special rights. If they are breaking the law they are to be dealt with accordingly, Individually no special treatment for anyone either as a group or as a Individual.

You didn't answer my question at all.

 

[Dakotah]

I'm not gonna argue with you, and be like the rest in this thread, I said if she was in america...

try to quote and read my actual post if you have an disagreement please. I could have worded it more clearly, and of course i meant protected*

That's the problem, I guess. It wasn't worded clearly enough, and I apologize for misinterpreting.

I read it as two sentences with separate subjects. The first indicated that you disagreed with what she said being an offense. The second offered your opinion as to what she would have been charged with had she been in America. The first sentence had no such specificity, which is where the confusion lies.

I will say this, however. Had she been in America when she spewed this garbage, she could very well have been charged with harassment, as that is the type of behaviour she was exhibiting. As you said, she also could have been charged with disturbing the peace.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

That's the problem, I guess. It wasn't worded clearly enough, and I apologize for misinterpreting.

I read it as two sentences with separate subjects. The first indicated that you disagreed with what she said being an offense. The second offered your opinion as to what she would have been charged with had she been in America. The first sentence had no such specificity, which is where the confusion lies.

I will say this, however. Had she been in America when she spewed this garbage, she could very well have been charged with harassment, as that is the type of behaviour she was exhibiting. As you said, she also could have been charged with disturbing the peace.

Disturbing the peace, maybe. Harassment is not a crime in the United States.

 

[Dakotah]

Disturbing the peace, maybe. Harassment is not a crime in the United States.

I suggest you read this:

https://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/a-z/harassment.html

 

[Mr. X]

Disturbing the peace, maybe. Harassment is not a crime in the United States.

Im assuming that the kind you are talking about is annoying stuff like someone calling you half a million times a day, calling you names, and a person making a ******* of themselves at the targets expense. Basicly, the kind of stuff you see on almost any Judge *Insert name here* shows. (I watch them for the entertainment but I don't have any respect for those so-called 'Judges.' I respect the profession, just not the fact that its pretty much become a much tamer version of Jerry Springer.)

Anyway...

Just I've read parts of the above link. You are missing one key point on it.

What constitutes criminal harassment varies by state, but it generally entails targeting someone else with behavior meant to alarm, annoy, torment or terrorize, and creating reasonable fear in the victim for their safety or the safety of their family.

It varies state by state since this is one of the things that the Federal Government left to the states to decide for themselves. While they might have punishments for harassment, the Government allows the states to decide what classifies as harassment and what doesn't. I'm pretty sure that the only exception is sexual harassment but while they share part of names, its a completely different subject from general harassment and probably follows a much different set of laws.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

I suggest you read this:

https://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/a-z/harassment.html

Harassment is a state-level issue. There is no federal statute outside workplace discrimination and interstate stalking.

That kind of harassment involves me constantly calling you, stalking you, and generally being a creep in a menacing way. Shouting racial slurs at you on a tram would not qualify unless I knew you and did it regularly.

 

[Dakotah]

Harassment is a state-level issue. There is no federal statute outside workplace discrimination and interstate stalking.

You seem to be stuck on this federal/state thing. Whether covered by state or federal law, does it really matter? The fact is harassment is against the law in every state, contrary to your assertion. There are literally thousands of instances where harassment charges have been laid where the perpetrator was someone unknown to the victim.

That kind of harassment involves me constantly calling you, stalking you, and generally being a creep in a menacing way. Shouting racial slurs at you on a tram would not qualify unless I knew you and did it regularly.

I'm sorry, but you're just not correct on this. There is nothing in any of the statutes that I've read that limit any form of harassment to the actions taken by someone you know alone. It can be by anyone; a neighbour down the street; someone from work; someone on the bus you're riding with. Secondly, shouting racial slurs CAN and IS considered harassment, especially if the slurs include a threat, or are made in an threatening way (which is exactly how this woman comes across).

The fact is, she was charged with harassment, in accordance with the law. Like it or not, that's the reality of it.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

You seem to be stuck on this federal/state thing. Whether covered by state or federal law, does it really matter? The fact is harassment is against the law in every state, contrary to your assertion. There are literally thousands of instances where harassment charges have been laid where the perpetrator was someone unknown to the victim.



I'm sorry, but you're just not correct on this. There is nothing in any of the statutes that I've read that limit any form of harassment to the actions taken by someone you know alone. It can be by anyone; a neighbour down the street; someone from work; someone on the bus you're riding with. Secondly, shouting racial slurs CAN and IS considered harassment, especially if the slurs include a threat, or are made in an threatening way (which is exactly how this woman comes across).

The fact is, she was charged with harassment, in accordance with the law. Like it or not, that's the reality of it.

I wasn't saying that you had to know the person. I was using that as an example

Harassment is a form of unwanted pestering that makes you feel unsafe and violated
Think of stalking, unwanted touching, etc.

Yes, making criminal threats is a crime, but that is a different offense altogether. There is no law criminalizing racial slurs in the United States similar to European-style hate speech laws.

While she was charged wit a law on the books, that doesn't make that law right
Are those convicted of sodomy in Iran not being done injustice because, hey, that's what the law is?

 

[KingCharizard]

You didn't answer my question at all.

I thought I did, its obvious I think there is nothing a "group" could do where i would think that their fighting for group rights...

 

[Oryx]

I thought I did, its obvious I think there is nothing a "group" could do where i would think that their fighting for group rights...

They why bother making the distinction at all? If a group is never fighting for group rights, then you're not against anything.