I don't see it that way at all. If anything I could accuse you of pretty much disregarding everything I've said without any real consideration of any point I made. My points were not made in regard to any theoretical law but this specific law. I find the notion that the history and motivations of those introducing or writing this legislation as well as the probable ethnic profiling that will ensue cannot factor into an assessment of whether or not it is racist to be incredibly shortsighted. Also, the other examples of policy and legislation were not just 'possibly related items', they show a trend in the government of the state of Arizona towards racism by singling out certain ethnic groups. This is not just my opinion this is the view of many people in this country and it is a view that should be taken seriously and not ignored as inconvient by those who don't care to see ways that racism still exists.
I still hold that your question is unfair as it assumes that any law exists in some vacuum, and no other thing can be germane to the evaluation of that law. Nothing in the world exists in a vacuum, and things can only be fully understood by looking at them in context of everything around them. I find it completely offensive that instead of treating any point I might make as worthy of consideration and actual response you would retreat to simply accusing me of deflection and saying things like, "You just don't like giving me the answer you don't want to give". Such a comment is intellectually dishonest and only serves to belittle my part in the discussion, effectively cutting off the possibility of fair and reasonable discussion.
No I am not cutting off the possibility of fair and reasonable discussion. You have been making your points. I haven't deleted the post. You are entitled to say what you want to say because that is how you have to say it.
You can't answer my question and that is fine. I am just pointing it out to you and you are getting upset with me by saying it is unfair to ask such a question. You can simply not respond if you know your answer is not correct.
No law does exist in a vacuum because for all your points can be matched with counterpoints. Every single one of them. The point I am trying to make is that is the specific law racist? Absolutely not. The people who might enforce it can be racist and therefore shouldn't the boycotters go after the individuals they perceive to be racist?
And shouldn't the reverse be true? I am sure there are people in California, New Mexico, Texas, and any border state that should be removed from office for not enforcing the current laws regarding illegal immigration. If you cannot follow laws then you should be replaced. If you don't like the law then replace it.
I am sorry you take offense when a counter point of view comes at you. I wish you wouldn't keep doing this because I did ask is the specific law racist. You didn't want to answer it and chose to side-step the issue by simply attacking those in office or racially profiling the people of Arizona who supported the bill.
You are entitled to your opinion as long as it is answering my question. I would be happy to post your question separately and you can debate it all you like.
The original post was on the actual boycott and the one-way mindset of city governments that it is okay for them to boycott others but they should not be boycotted.
I still hold that your question is unfair as it assumes that any law exists in some vacuum, and no other thing can be germane to the evaluation of that law. Nothing in the world exists in a vacuum, and things can only be fully understood by looking at them in context of everything around them. I find it completely offensive that instead of treating any point I might make as worthy of consideration and actual response you would retreat to simply accusing me of deflection and saying things like, "You just don't like giving me the answer you don't want to give". Such a comment is intellectually dishonest and only serves to belittle my part in the discussion, effectively cutting off the possibility of fair and reasonable discussion.
Reply
You can't answer my question and that is fine. I am just pointing it out to you and you are getting upset with me by saying it is unfair to ask such a question. You can simply not respond if you know your answer is not correct.
No law does exist in a vacuum because for all your points can be matched with counterpoints. Every single one of them. The point I am trying to make is that is the specific law racist? Absolutely not. The people who might enforce it can be racist and therefore shouldn't the boycotters go after the individuals they perceive to be racist?
And shouldn't the reverse be true? I am sure there are people in California, New Mexico, Texas, and any border state that should be removed from office for not enforcing the current laws regarding illegal immigration. If you cannot follow laws then you should be replaced. If you don't like the law then replace it.
I am sorry you take offense when a counter point of view comes at you. I wish you wouldn't keep doing this because I did ask is the specific law racist. You didn't want to answer it and chose to side-step the issue by simply attacking those in office or racially profiling the people of Arizona who supported the bill.
You are entitled to your opinion as long as it is answering my question. I would be happy to post your question separately and you can debate it all you like.
The original post was on the actual boycott and the one-way mindset of city governments that it is okay for them to boycott others but they should not be boycotted.
Reply
The laws themselves cannot be racist until applied in a racist format.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment