I knew a girl on the web from Nigeria. She wants to buy a camera. Then she asked her agent(??) to buy it from Kodak online store and sent it to me first then sent it her. Then I recieved it then tried to send it by Fedex. But they said they don't want to send anything to Lagos, Nigeria because so much scam. So I returned to Kodak by USPS. (I still had the Deilvery Confimation number) I checked online USPS did deliver to the Kodak in New York. But I called Kodak they didn't get anything. Now her agent said if I didn't give him back this camera, he is going to report to FBI that I am scammer or theif. What can I do now?!!!
Answers:
First off. this is not unique to you at all. You are one of hundreds of people (usually men who get swept up with a girl in Nigeria on the internet) with a similar problem.
You were being duped to become part of the scam. They use stolen or duped credit cars to buy stuff but have it sent to a US address where they have duped someone into accepting delivery then sending it on to Nigeria.
Come on! Stop %26 think. You know her online. SO she obviously has a computer with internet capabilities. Why would she need an agent to buy the camera online for her, have it delivered to you, then have you ship it to her? Why would she not simply buy it online herself?? Why go through all the extra shipping expenses?
They are NOT going to notify the FBI.
#1, it is not the FBI's jurisdiction.
FedEx saved your butt. They have too much history with Nigerian scams to be shipping items there.
Call their bluff. At the next contact with the "agent" (more commonly known as accomplice), give him the phone number for the FBI. Encourage him to call. Not just call the FBI but also call the Nigerian authorities.
You could tell them to go to hell but they already live there.
as long as u documented everything with receipts, fuk em.lmao, a nigerian turnin someone else in for runnin a scam
Did the camera ever come into your hands?
Do you know for sure it is a camera and not an empty box or a box of junk?
If you have a FEDEX receipt for the package to be returned to Kodak, and a delivery confirmation,you are free and clear.
The Nigerian is probably trying to scam you.
Doc
sorry..
You are being taken advantage of by a very common scam..Welcome to the world of con artisits..
they can not report you to the FBI..they are using false "scare tactics" to make a profit for their own use..
Cut off all contact and cut your contact off immediatly..
and always be very carefull when doing any business in any other country hwen you are not dealing with a legitimate foreign business..
people do not purchaase things through agents..it would of been purchased though you directly by the person wanting it..
Tell the agent you already called the FBI and they will be here when you get here . My bet is the her agent will never appear since the camera was obviously purchased with a stolen credit card. Tell her to call about 30 mins before she gets there so you can have time to call local police. That should end the matter right there. But I'm betting her agent never shows.
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Really kings capture entire world, but British also capture entire world but they is no rules go detail studie
Answers:
I'm thinkin'...crispy bacon...Yum Yum!
type ur question properly!
Waffles and eggs are good on Sundays for breakfast.
Pig wobble flop flop!
Go "studie" English.
ghkf;s gfjdkj gfdkj nnnm.dk nkfds;kn that made more sense then what you said
hi bhvani,
i understood u r question but , u need to check u r grammar,
u just go to any library and ask them about , world rulers, and world history, u may find what u looking for
bhavani, for gods sake, when ur u going to use proper english so that others can understand what u are trying to ask.
stop using gibberish
First of all whenever you ask a question type it properly.
If you want to know about british rule in india visit this website.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/british_eas...
you will get every detail in this.
Re: Police Dilemma Question.?
Listen, eveyone I'm asking for your help not to be criticized. I need help. It's already to late to mind my business. Please I need input not to be made fun of.
Answers:
We can't answer your question if it goes unasked.
I just searched to see if you had other questions related to this.
Yep. You do.
You need to tell the police EVERYTHING. Come clean to them, make sure you tell them this was not your idea or desire. See if your ex will vouch for you with the police, and tell them that you gave him a heads up as to what "Tracy" was trying to do. If he will stand by you on this, you shouldn't have any trouble, but Tracy will.
Good luck. Talk to your ex. Get him to help you. He should be grateful you interceded.
So what's your question?
Yeah.. you need to tell us what the question is..
Ok What is your question?
Ditto answer No. 1...So what's your problem?
erm.yes..(that is the answer to your non-apparent question)
O K so what is it you need help with?
You ask a question you need to state what the question is so it can be answered.
But anyhow I got two points. thx....
Answers:
We can't answer your question if it goes unasked.
I just searched to see if you had other questions related to this.
Yep. You do.
You need to tell the police EVERYTHING. Come clean to them, make sure you tell them this was not your idea or desire. See if your ex will vouch for you with the police, and tell them that you gave him a heads up as to what "Tracy" was trying to do. If he will stand by you on this, you shouldn't have any trouble, but Tracy will.
Good luck. Talk to your ex. Get him to help you. He should be grateful you interceded.
So what's your question?
Yeah.. you need to tell us what the question is..
Ok What is your question?
Ditto answer No. 1...So what's your problem?
erm.yes..(that is the answer to your non-apparent question)
O K so what is it you need help with?
You ask a question you need to state what the question is so it can be answered.
But anyhow I got two points. thx....
Re: Child support/private subpeona?
"Joe" has had a subpeona for 4 court dates regarding child support. He hasn't come to any dates, but "joe's" father does, and has lied under oath about the whereabouts of "Joe". A witness happened to mention after the last court date that he knows where Joe lives (not where dad said he lived) and Judge overheard. The judge told the person awaiting child support payments she could issue a 'private subpeona' of some sort, and that after that, police could actually be sent to find Joe, instead of just continuing to court subpeona him, only to have him not show up in court again. Obviously Joe is hiding out to avoid payment, and is likely trying to get on Social Security disability to avoid further payment. Has anybody ever heard of this or can shed some light??
Thanks.
Answers:
go to the police station and file against him for contempt of court, you have a court ordered support right? he isint paying... therefore it is contempt of court, most people dont know they can just go to their local police station,but they can and if they have to push the cop to file the charges, "joe" is obviously stealing from his kids and now its time to pay up! if he then doesnt show up to court after the contempt of court(which he will get ticketed for) he will possibly get his liscence suspended, jail time,and his name and face posted all over for being a dead beat.if he does end up getting ojn social security, your children will also recieve a check monthly because he is "responsible" for them. good luck to you!
Well, it seems really dumb.
Also would never happen.
First of all, Joe's father can't make excuses for why his son is not in court. Unless he's dead or in prison, he has no excuse for flouting a court order, and the judge can and will drag him into court if he refuses to go willingly. That's what a subpoena is.
Secondly, (let's say that the judge didn't do that, which would never happen) the judge who overheard the statement about the real whereabouts of the person ducking the subpoena can not only issue a new subpoena, he or she can also send the sherriff or the police to that address to forcibly remove Joe and drag his deadbeat @$$ to court.
Thirdly, it's not the responsibility of the person awaiting child support payments to issue anything when there is proof that the person who was subpoenaed is disregarding it. It's a court order and the court issues and enforces it.
And lastly, there is no such thing as a private subpoena. A subpoena isn't a request, it's an order, and it's issued by a judge and in connection with a court case, and it's delivered in person to "Joe" by a sherriff's deputy. There are very few ways out of it, all of which need to be approved by the judge who issued it, and if Joe didn't get out of it legally, he would be dragged in and likely cited, maybe even arrested.
because family law is a private matter, the mother of the child must file the paperwork necessary to turn this into a criminal matter. that is what the judge is talking about. since he is not the attorney representing either side he cannot act until someone takes the request for him to do so. you can go down to your local courthouse. read all the forms. they will have what you are looking for.
Thanks.
Answers:
go to the police station and file against him for contempt of court, you have a court ordered support right? he isint paying... therefore it is contempt of court, most people dont know they can just go to their local police station,but they can and if they have to push the cop to file the charges, "joe" is obviously stealing from his kids and now its time to pay up! if he then doesnt show up to court after the contempt of court(which he will get ticketed for) he will possibly get his liscence suspended, jail time,and his name and face posted all over for being a dead beat.if he does end up getting ojn social security, your children will also recieve a check monthly because he is "responsible" for them. good luck to you!
Well, it seems really dumb.
Also would never happen.
First of all, Joe's father can't make excuses for why his son is not in court. Unless he's dead or in prison, he has no excuse for flouting a court order, and the judge can and will drag him into court if he refuses to go willingly. That's what a subpoena is.
Secondly, (let's say that the judge didn't do that, which would never happen) the judge who overheard the statement about the real whereabouts of the person ducking the subpoena can not only issue a new subpoena, he or she can also send the sherriff or the police to that address to forcibly remove Joe and drag his deadbeat @$$ to court.
Thirdly, it's not the responsibility of the person awaiting child support payments to issue anything when there is proof that the person who was subpoenaed is disregarding it. It's a court order and the court issues and enforces it.
And lastly, there is no such thing as a private subpoena. A subpoena isn't a request, it's an order, and it's issued by a judge and in connection with a court case, and it's delivered in person to "Joe" by a sherriff's deputy. There are very few ways out of it, all of which need to be approved by the judge who issued it, and if Joe didn't get out of it legally, he would be dragged in and likely cited, maybe even arrested.
because family law is a private matter, the mother of the child must file the paperwork necessary to turn this into a criminal matter. that is what the judge is talking about. since he is not the attorney representing either side he cannot act until someone takes the request for him to do so. you can go down to your local courthouse. read all the forms. they will have what you are looking for.
Re: Child & Spousal Support & Court?
My soon to be ex is refusing to continue with support payments until either a separation agreement is signed, or we finalize an agreement in court. He is parading around town in a new mercedes, shopping like crazy for himself, including new teeth, new rims for the car, etc. My question is: Will the courts take into consideration his lifestyle and purchases when deciding what the support payment amount will be? AND will they also require him to make payments for the months that he did not provide support?
I live in Canada. And the reason I'm asking here is because my lawyer would probably charge me a couple hundred dollars just to answer those questions. Thanks in advance.
Answers:
I don't know how things work in Canada, but if they work similar to the US, awards for child and spousal support usually work as follows:
1) you have your lawyer file a notice of separation with the court.
2) you will have to provide proof of when your spouse left the homestead and provided no support to you or your child (I assume you are not working)
3) The court will then make a temporary award for support (spousal and child) and it will be back dated to when you can show your husband left.
4) The court will base the award on the standard of living you and your child enjoyed during the marriage, and on the assets and income your husband and you have.
5) When a final decree is made (actual legal divorce), when the judge is dividing up assets, he will most likely deduct any award that would have gone to your husband by what the court would consider wasteful depletion of the martial estate. If by chance there aren't enough assets left, your alimony support will be increased to make up the shortfall.
I would recommend you file with the court as soon as possible. Have your lawyer complete an immediate accounting of your husband's assets and the assets of the martial estate. The court can place a temporary injuction on your husband from wasting any more of the martial assets. Move quickly before, he can hide any assets also.
I am in Colorado - and we went to a mediator for our divorce - and I brought it up that my ex was unemployed, but still finding time to run around on vacations with his new girlfriend, but couldn't afford to pay me child support. The mediator told him that needed to stop - as the judge would have a hay day with it in court. I is probaby different in Canada - but I think that they should at least look at it - and I would make a point to point it out.
I live in Canada. And the reason I'm asking here is because my lawyer would probably charge me a couple hundred dollars just to answer those questions. Thanks in advance.
Answers:
I don't know how things work in Canada, but if they work similar to the US, awards for child and spousal support usually work as follows:
1) you have your lawyer file a notice of separation with the court.
2) you will have to provide proof of when your spouse left the homestead and provided no support to you or your child (I assume you are not working)
3) The court will then make a temporary award for support (spousal and child) and it will be back dated to when you can show your husband left.
4) The court will base the award on the standard of living you and your child enjoyed during the marriage, and on the assets and income your husband and you have.
5) When a final decree is made (actual legal divorce), when the judge is dividing up assets, he will most likely deduct any award that would have gone to your husband by what the court would consider wasteful depletion of the martial estate. If by chance there aren't enough assets left, your alimony support will be increased to make up the shortfall.
I would recommend you file with the court as soon as possible. Have your lawyer complete an immediate accounting of your husband's assets and the assets of the martial estate. The court can place a temporary injuction on your husband from wasting any more of the martial assets. Move quickly before, he can hide any assets also.
I am in Colorado - and we went to a mediator for our divorce - and I brought it up that my ex was unemployed, but still finding time to run around on vacations with his new girlfriend, but couldn't afford to pay me child support. The mediator told him that needed to stop - as the judge would have a hay day with it in court. I is probaby different in Canada - but I think that they should at least look at it - and I would make a point to point it out.
Re. the alleged intensive care interrogation of Ashcroft by Gonzales, should Ashcroft be called in to tell?
his version under oath, or should (and will) the President allow a special prosecuter to investigate the facts?
Answers:
yes no maybe
yes, yes, and no. duck, duck, goose..
Answers:
yes no maybe
yes, yes, and no. duck, duck, goose..
Rape!! if we ennact islamic shariah ( death penalty for rape) will the graph of rape will rise or will fall??
tell truthfully
Answers:
That depends on what you graph... actual rapes committed, or rape convictions. I think the number of rapes committed will drop very slightly, but the number of convictions will plummet. Basically, rape will go on, but no one will get in trouble for it any more, because juries won't want to convict if the death penalty is the only possible punishment.
rape/murder will rise for sure
I don't think rapists consider the punishment for the act of rape before they rape someone. They are too busy planning how they are going to commit the crime to think about the consequences. I don't believe most people who commit any crime believe they will ever be caught so wouldn't consider what the punishment is until they have been arrested.
Please spare the world the Islamic shariah!! Death for crime and chopping off hands for stealing?! May God protect us from such atrocities. If this kinda law would be implimented then the so called protectors of the shariah law would start abusing their power just like they are in Saudia Arabia. Hasn't it been proved that power in the hand of the few elite men always end in cruelty and injustice over time? A person who steals can repent later on if sent to prison, but once a hand is chopped off or death penalty given, there is no coming back! I would never want these kind of laws in our society. Look at all the false rape claims by some women. If there was this nasty law then all the accused men will be considered for death penalties. How gross!
I am not saying rape should go unpunished. All I mean is that the rape count will not come down anyways by introduction of Islamic laws but the false claims would also rise along with it and many innocent people will have to go through the torture of considering themselves doomed even before the trial!
I think the number of people who survive rape will go down. I mean if you're going to hang for rape why not just kill the only eye witness than can tie you to the crime.
Repubs would love it they like to execute people!
Depends on how you look at it. If we also enact Isalmic law for women and families alike then women can be killed for being raped (as she has dishonored her family by having sex outside marriage, this is how honour killings are justified).
There was a 14 year old Canadian muslim girl who was forced to give oral sex to a classmate in the toilet block. She was targeted because she was muslim and therefore deemed to be a more appropriate target because of her religious beliefs and that she was less likely to tell anyone what happened.
Did you mean that only the offenders get the death penalty? Ahh.. Well I guess that will be lowered. Of course, offenders may just get smarter and say I know where you live and I'll kill all your siblings if you say anything, you can't protect them all and I have friends..
Rape will stay the same. The death penalty has no greater deterrent effect than 20 years in prison.
The number of murders will go up, however, as more rapists kill their victims to keep them silent.
I thinks it will neithe rise or fall. For the mere reason such people think they will never be caught.
From what I understand, the application of the Shariah Law by tribal and local community authorities in countries like Pakistan and other places usually results in the death penalty being applies to the raped woman. And this of course discourages women from complaining to anyone about being raped.
Implementation of the Shariah Law probably increases the incidence of rape. But such rape becomes hidden from the authorities because many women don't complain about it. And perhaps according to official statistics, the incidence of reported rape decreases.
drops dramaticall yfor sure
Answers:
That depends on what you graph... actual rapes committed, or rape convictions. I think the number of rapes committed will drop very slightly, but the number of convictions will plummet. Basically, rape will go on, but no one will get in trouble for it any more, because juries won't want to convict if the death penalty is the only possible punishment.
rape/murder will rise for sure
I don't think rapists consider the punishment for the act of rape before they rape someone. They are too busy planning how they are going to commit the crime to think about the consequences. I don't believe most people who commit any crime believe they will ever be caught so wouldn't consider what the punishment is until they have been arrested.
Please spare the world the Islamic shariah!! Death for crime and chopping off hands for stealing?! May God protect us from such atrocities. If this kinda law would be implimented then the so called protectors of the shariah law would start abusing their power just like they are in Saudia Arabia. Hasn't it been proved that power in the hand of the few elite men always end in cruelty and injustice over time? A person who steals can repent later on if sent to prison, but once a hand is chopped off or death penalty given, there is no coming back! I would never want these kind of laws in our society. Look at all the false rape claims by some women. If there was this nasty law then all the accused men will be considered for death penalties. How gross!
I am not saying rape should go unpunished. All I mean is that the rape count will not come down anyways by introduction of Islamic laws but the false claims would also rise along with it and many innocent people will have to go through the torture of considering themselves doomed even before the trial!
I think the number of people who survive rape will go down. I mean if you're going to hang for rape why not just kill the only eye witness than can tie you to the crime.
Repubs would love it they like to execute people!
Depends on how you look at it. If we also enact Isalmic law for women and families alike then women can be killed for being raped (as she has dishonored her family by having sex outside marriage, this is how honour killings are justified).
There was a 14 year old Canadian muslim girl who was forced to give oral sex to a classmate in the toilet block. She was targeted because she was muslim and therefore deemed to be a more appropriate target because of her religious beliefs and that she was less likely to tell anyone what happened.
Did you mean that only the offenders get the death penalty? Ahh.. Well I guess that will be lowered. Of course, offenders may just get smarter and say I know where you live and I'll kill all your siblings if you say anything, you can't protect them all and I have friends..
Rape will stay the same. The death penalty has no greater deterrent effect than 20 years in prison.
The number of murders will go up, however, as more rapists kill their victims to keep them silent.
I thinks it will neithe rise or fall. For the mere reason such people think they will never be caught.
From what I understand, the application of the Shariah Law by tribal and local community authorities in countries like Pakistan and other places usually results in the death penalty being applies to the raped woman. And this of course discourages women from complaining to anyone about being raped.
Implementation of the Shariah Law probably increases the incidence of rape. But such rape becomes hidden from the authorities because many women don't complain about it. And perhaps according to official statistics, the incidence of reported rape decreases.
drops dramaticall yfor sure
Rape by an men?
i been rape what can i do about it? 1 year to day?
Answers:
You could report it to the police however there's probably not much they can do - BUT your report will be on file, and if this guy strikes again your testimony will be important. You could seek counselling - here's a good helpline
http://www.rapecrisis.org.uk/
Your abit late aren't you...what you been doing for the past year..
Has it just hit you now or something....however I am not 1 to judge. womans aid - check phonebook
go to the police make a statement ask them for advice
If you have been raped you should seek counseling. It may be too late to be able to bring charges, but I am not sure of that because states differ on the statute of limitations. You should definitely seek counseling though- and also look into the reason why it took you so long to seek help or speak up.
Learn to use the English language first, secondly you should have documented things. No evidence, you don't have any real case.
there is not much you can do on the legal side as all the evidence will have gone have you tried to go to concealing just talking about it helps there are people out there that will help you look in you local phone book there are contact numbers in it and they will be able to help good luck
you can still report it.look what's been going on in the catholic church over the year's.they thought they would get away with it but there time is up.REPORT IT now.
You don't say whether you are male or female, what age you are or the circumstances of the rape. You don't say whether you have told anyone about this but that has got to be your first step. Do you have anyone close to you that you can share this with, someone you can trust? If not you need to speak with your doctor with a view to getting expert counselling. If you feel you cannot speak to either, you will find the numbers for rape crisis centres in your phone book. It doesn't matter that it's a year down the line. Some people are so traumatised by rape that they find it too difficult to face for a while. The experts know this and will give you the help you need. They'll also be able to advise you and support you if you want to take legal action. I am so sorry this has happened to you and hope you find the help you need. If you just need to talk you can e-mail me :)
a year past? probably not much except to file a report. i would guess it will merely become a statistic.
Call Al Sharpton today.
Its nothing to be ashamed of. Go to the police. They will be very sympathetic and will help you as much as they can.
go to the police
Report it to the police so they can assess the evidence if any and advise you properly
Report it to the police. This is the only thing you can do, and you owe it to yourself to do so.
Answers:
You could report it to the police however there's probably not much they can do - BUT your report will be on file, and if this guy strikes again your testimony will be important. You could seek counselling - here's a good helpline
http://www.rapecrisis.org.uk/
Your abit late aren't you...what you been doing for the past year..
Has it just hit you now or something....however I am not 1 to judge. womans aid - check phonebook
go to the police make a statement ask them for advice
If you have been raped you should seek counseling. It may be too late to be able to bring charges, but I am not sure of that because states differ on the statute of limitations. You should definitely seek counseling though- and also look into the reason why it took you so long to seek help or speak up.
Learn to use the English language first, secondly you should have documented things. No evidence, you don't have any real case.
there is not much you can do on the legal side as all the evidence will have gone have you tried to go to concealing just talking about it helps there are people out there that will help you look in you local phone book there are contact numbers in it and they will be able to help good luck
you can still report it.look what's been going on in the catholic church over the year's.they thought they would get away with it but there time is up.REPORT IT now.
You don't say whether you are male or female, what age you are or the circumstances of the rape. You don't say whether you have told anyone about this but that has got to be your first step. Do you have anyone close to you that you can share this with, someone you can trust? If not you need to speak with your doctor with a view to getting expert counselling. If you feel you cannot speak to either, you will find the numbers for rape crisis centres in your phone book. It doesn't matter that it's a year down the line. Some people are so traumatised by rape that they find it too difficult to face for a while. The experts know this and will give you the help you need. They'll also be able to advise you and support you if you want to take legal action. I am so sorry this has happened to you and hope you find the help you need. If you just need to talk you can e-mail me :)
a year past? probably not much except to file a report. i would guess it will merely become a statistic.
Call Al Sharpton today.
Its nothing to be ashamed of. Go to the police. They will be very sympathetic and will help you as much as they can.
go to the police
Report it to the police so they can assess the evidence if any and advise you properly
Report it to the police. This is the only thing you can do, and you owe it to yourself to do so.
Rank the following criminal offenses in order of your personal beliefs.?
1)Cheating on your wife/husband
2)Selling 1 pound of weed to a group of college students
3)Killing a dog for pleasure
4)Driving a car dunk (waisted)
5)Statutory rape 17 year old has sex with a 15 year old
Answers:
Not all are criminal offenses, and the laws vary by state and country as to which ones are.
As for my personal beliefs.
#1 is the worst, since "cheating" by definition means breaking your oath. If you are talking about any adultery, even where there is an open marriage, then it drops off the list entirely.
#3 is the worst other than that -- cruelty for no valid reason.
#4 is a risk-management crime -- the person has not caused any harm, but they might.
#2 and #5, -- as long as everyone involved consented, should not be crimes in my personal opinion.
Cheating on your wife/husband isn't a criminal offense. I'll pretend you meant Moral Offenses:
1) (WORST) Killing an animal for pleasure (this is violent every time, and a sign of pure evil)
2) Driving drunk (this RISKS violence every time, and thus is rightfully criminal, but it's a mark of stupidity more than pure evil)
The rest are more "between individuals," so should be significantly lower.
3) Cheating on wife/husband
4) Selling a pound of weed
5) 17 year old and consensual 15 year old... although really, these last two are a tie for me. If you'd said an 18 year old and a 15 year old, it would go above "cheating on wife/husband"
1) Drunk driving
2) Animal torture
3) Cheating on wife/husband
4) Statuatory (if consensual)
5) distributing a plant
I am assuming you mean from worst to not as bad so
4 because not are you only indangering your life but everyone else on the road too
3 even if it is an animal killing anything for pleasure is just one messed up maniac
1 becuase you are breaking the trust of the one person that should always be there for you and messing up your whole families life
2 cause weed isnt that bad but it isnt worth the risk of going to jail.
5 the reason I rank this as the least offensive is on the condition that it was consential other than the fact that was under age. Kids have sex. It is just an unfortunate fact. At 15 most kids are making the decision to have sex anyway
#3
#4
#1
#2
#5 if they are boyfriend and girlfriend or very close and there is no coercion or force of any kind involved
4
5
3
1
2
1 is not a crime in most areas.
2 is a consent issue. No one is being forced to do something against their will.
3 is the destruction of the property of another (yes, dogs are considered property)
4 is risking your life as well as the lives of others by blatant disregard for the law.
5 depends on the age of consent. If it is an actual rape (not consensual), it would rank as #1
Killing a dog for pleasure (I understand if the dog is in pain but just for the sake of watching it die. Also the phrasing given (use of word pleasure) indicates that there would be torture involved).
Driving a car drunk (you can kill innocent people if you do this)
Cheating on your spouse (it is high on my list but not as high as the others).
Stat rape (well I think that both would be considered minors as the 17 year old would not be considered an adult in most countries still, if 铆t's a boyfriend/girlfriend relationship and they feel comfortable with it why not).
Selling 1 pound of weed (college kids know better if they want to take it then they can deal with it).
2)Selling 1 pound of weed to a group of college students
3)Killing a dog for pleasure
4)Driving a car dunk (waisted)
5)Statutory rape 17 year old has sex with a 15 year old
Answers:
Not all are criminal offenses, and the laws vary by state and country as to which ones are.
As for my personal beliefs.
#1 is the worst, since "cheating" by definition means breaking your oath. If you are talking about any adultery, even where there is an open marriage, then it drops off the list entirely.
#3 is the worst other than that -- cruelty for no valid reason.
#4 is a risk-management crime -- the person has not caused any harm, but they might.
#2 and #5, -- as long as everyone involved consented, should not be crimes in my personal opinion.
Cheating on your wife/husband isn't a criminal offense. I'll pretend you meant Moral Offenses:
1) (WORST) Killing an animal for pleasure (this is violent every time, and a sign of pure evil)
2) Driving drunk (this RISKS violence every time, and thus is rightfully criminal, but it's a mark of stupidity more than pure evil)
The rest are more "between individuals," so should be significantly lower.
3) Cheating on wife/husband
4) Selling a pound of weed
5) 17 year old and consensual 15 year old... although really, these last two are a tie for me. If you'd said an 18 year old and a 15 year old, it would go above "cheating on wife/husband"
1) Drunk driving
2) Animal torture
3) Cheating on wife/husband
4) Statuatory (if consensual)
5) distributing a plant
I am assuming you mean from worst to not as bad so
4 because not are you only indangering your life but everyone else on the road too
3 even if it is an animal killing anything for pleasure is just one messed up maniac
1 becuase you are breaking the trust of the one person that should always be there for you and messing up your whole families life
2 cause weed isnt that bad but it isnt worth the risk of going to jail.
5 the reason I rank this as the least offensive is on the condition that it was consential other than the fact that was under age. Kids have sex. It is just an unfortunate fact. At 15 most kids are making the decision to have sex anyway
#3
#4
#1
#2
#5 if they are boyfriend and girlfriend or very close and there is no coercion or force of any kind involved
4
5
3
1
2
1 is not a crime in most areas.
2 is a consent issue. No one is being forced to do something against their will.
3 is the destruction of the property of another (yes, dogs are considered property)
4 is risking your life as well as the lives of others by blatant disregard for the law.
5 depends on the age of consent. If it is an actual rape (not consensual), it would rank as #1
Killing a dog for pleasure (I understand if the dog is in pain but just for the sake of watching it die. Also the phrasing given (use of word pleasure) indicates that there would be torture involved).
Driving a car drunk (you can kill innocent people if you do this)
Cheating on your spouse (it is high on my list but not as high as the others).
Stat rape (well I think that both would be considered minors as the 17 year old would not be considered an adult in most countries still, if 铆t's a boyfriend/girlfriend relationship and they feel comfortable with it why not).
Selling 1 pound of weed (college kids know better if they want to take it then they can deal with it).
Raising the age for drinking to 21 and driving to 18?
I've heard a lot about these 2 issues lately, but only from the 'safety of the pulic perspective' everyone in the media seem to think this is a good idea - nobody I heard criticised the plans.
I think this is an attack on young, law abiding adults who have done nothing wrong!
Answers:
The Americans will be confused with your question because the drinking age is already 21 in the USA and they don't know enough about any other country to understand your question must be from Canada or some other country with a drinking age of 19.
I always found it funny that we(in Canada) are old enough to vote and die in a war at 18, but we are considered mature enough to drive at 16 and not mature enough to drink untill 19. I think all of these are things you should be able to do when you reach an age where you can think for yourself and are responsible enough to use these responsibilities wisely.
If you don't think an 18 year old is mature enough to handle his/her drink, then why should an 18 year old be trusted in knowing enough about the political landscape to vote or why should an 18 year old be sent off to a foreign land to do things and witness things that would blow the mind of a 30 year old? If 18 and 19 year olds are considered responsible enough to vote, fight and drink at these ages, why are 16 year olds considered mature enough to be behind the wheel of a big piece of rubber, plastic, glass and steel? Personally, I was a much more agressive driver untill my earlier 20's before I mellowed it out. At the time I thought it was literally dicrimination against youth, that I had to pay such high insurance rates, but now in my 30's, after reading the stories week after week of young drivers being killed and killing others in street racing and other agressive driving(also cell-phone use), I think that the minimum age for drivers should be ATLEAST 18.
I understand how you can see it as an attack against young adults and I would have seen it your way when I was 18. Remember all the times your parents wouldn't let you out past a certain time, or wouldn't let you go to a certain place...they only did that because they wanted you to be safe. Being able to drive at 16 is maybe alittle old-fashioned. It is no longer the 16 year old driving the family's wood-panelled station-wagon, worried to death he will put a scratch in it and face the wrath of his dad. It is now the young kid driving his parent's BMW or his very own (parent bought) Honda Civic, that can go 0-60 in a twitch of the toe and can go in excess of 200 km/h. I think it's about time that the minimum age to drive be increased by atleast 2 years from 16. As far as changing the age of drinking, don't change a thing, and party on. It's also good for the environment to make teens wait untill adulthood to drive because that is 2 more years of public transit.
34, didn't bother to get my license untill 20 when I got my first car. Step-mom wouldn't let me drive the family cars. 95 Neon, what a nightmare!!
What country are you in because the legal drinking age in the states is 21. and yes kids shouldn't be allowed to drive until they are 18
i second the first answer
look at the statistics most people who die in accidents are young people through either drink driving or drug driving i think ts a very good idea also think people should be made to take a seperate test for motorway driving
You are obviously under 21 otherwise you would be agreeing with this idea. I agree that in the UK the drinking age should be raised to 20 and they driving age to 18.
in Australia yeah? well i haven't ever heard about this once. and it sounds stupid. you cant make people who have been driving for a year stop driving. sure the MINORITY of people abuse this but most of us need to drive to carry on with our lives.
the drinking this is laughable. you can drive a car, you can buy a gun, you can have sex, raise a family but you can't drink a beer?
When young people begin to act their age then maybe they wont have to keep raising the age.
The fact is most 21 year olds act like fifteen year olds so why should they have any privileges
a better idea is to outlaw alcohol then we wouldn't have as many of our youth killed as or because of a drunk driver.there would also be a lot less fights started over nothing and people wouldn't be so afraid to walk home past the local watering hole.i understand your point of the loss of entertainment for the innocent but after a few drinks anyone has the ability to get super stupid.
am 34 from uk and think its a great idea, i passed last year btw.
I'd like to point out that if these laws were to be passed, things would become A LOT more inconvenient for a VERY large number of people. I'm not just talking about high school students who need to attend extracurricular activities and whatnot. You need to think about the parents, too, who are going to have to sacrifice work time to pick up and drive their kids places. Or the various clubs and organizations that will have to provide rides or reschedule their events because a kid's dad doesn't get home til 7.
Yes, all those drunk driving/motor accident statistics other people have spouted are all true, and I agree, young people are a menace to the highways. Yet, as cold as this sounds as it deals with human life, when it comes down to cost and benefits, 18 is just not a practical limit for driving. Don't get me wrong, it would be nice, but it's just too impractical.
And I bet all those people supporting this measure without second thought would've thrown a fit if they were still 16 and this law was in place. But tis the selfish nature of stupid people.
I think its stupid. It wont solve any problems. The only problems we have is the government - if we changed them our country would improve.
Passed driving test: 17
Actually the UK, US, Canada, etc...YA! all get mashed together sometimes.
Im reading this from the US site.
They driving age should be 16 and everything else should be 18. Being able to fight in a war at 18, but not drink a beer is quite insane. Young people are smarter than you think. I am dependent on my car and I'm only 16 and like someone else mentioned, my parents cant cart me around to all my extracurriculars, and I live in a suburban area with not a great public transportation system. Of course if this law passed, it would not take away from people who already have their license and what not, but it would become effective at a certain time to certain people. Teenagers have minds and are not inferior to adults... you were once young too.
I'm in favour of it. I think the driving age should be 21 as well as the drinking age.
There are far too many yobbos, scumbags and boy racers out on the street ruining life for everybody.
I think there should also be a 7pm curfew for all under 18's. If you are out after dark you should be shot on sight. It is the only way to rid ourselves of the human filth (yobs, gangs of hoodies etc.)
Raising the age of drinking will make little difference because it's so easy to get hold of alcohol.And it might make teenagers drink out of rebellion which is surely worse tahn drinking legally.
Raising the age of driving surely won't make any difference either.Young drivers seem to get into trouble because they get "cocky" after they've passed their test.It might even become a worse problem because they've had to wait longer.
Its not the age that causes problems, its attitudes. Introduce kids to alcohol much younger, perhaps early teens and let them become responsable with it under supervision.
As for driving, the current attitude is learn to pass the test, not learn to drive. I say bring the age down to learn to drive on public roads to 15 or 16. Teach it to kids as part of their GCSE's, even if its just on simulators and on the playgrounds rather then the road.
Increasing the ages just means the same people die slightly older.
Phsycological testing for drivers as well and regular eye testing for drivers would go a long way to heling safety.
I am 21 and passed at 17.
The age for purchasing alcohol in UK is 18years normally 16 years with food which I think your referring to .The age for drinking alcohol in UK law is actually 5 years old.As the age of majority(legal adulthood) is 18 years it could cause problems for any government bring this law in as 18 year olds can vote and could cost the government to loose a large amount of votes.The driving age is OK as it is ,though many are immature it necessary that young people learn to drive as the skills gained are necessary for the sake of society in general.Drivers are needed to work in many essential jobs and of course services such as police and ambulance.
Since some American %26 Canadian contributors have joined this UK site I'll try to include %26 recognise their input.. So many factors are involved. Ironically in Manitoba, Quebec %26 Alberta Provinces the legal drinking age is actually 18 and Alberta is currently debating raising the drinking age to 19, a previous attempt a few years back failed. ( Google 'alberta drinking age ' for more info ) Youngsters rightly point out they can be taxed, go to war %26 use a gun but not be allowed to buy alcohol. Alcohol related trouble is now so often not 'just' a fight, but a fight to the death be it kicking, stamping, guns or knives. So many factors, I'd be inclined to leave the drinking age as it is but not allow unsupervised under 18's into pubs, they can legally go in unaccompanied at 16yrs in England even though they are not allowed to buy alcohol and can only drink alcohol with a meal and when accompanied by an adult who must buy and supervise them. In England we should make pub age ID entry cards compulsory, not just advisable, this is somethging America and Canada do try to enforce better than us. I'd increase a real Police presence, not community support wardens etc. and let the judiciary imposed real appropriate sentences across a host of ilegal anti-social activiites, not just alcohol related ones.
As for driving ages, lets recognise the difficulties of getting around, if research reveals real problems in raising the age instead restrict the power of the engine, make displaying a P plate compulsory and no passengers to be carried except those with a new 'senior' licence which would be issued at say 21yrs. Again real Policemen using discretion in enforcing and encouraging proper driving standards, not cash generating speed cameras.
It doesn't matter what the age limit is, someone will always try to break it.
Why should responsible drinkers suffer for the acts of moronic children? Maybe if the police enforced the existing laws more strictly we wouldn't need further legislation. It is illegal to sell alcohol to under 18s, or for anyone to buy it on behalf of minors.
Making it more expensive wouldn't make much difference, as we already have some of the most expensive drinks in the world. We have to alter attitudes to drinking, kids of 14 see it as a badge of honour to get bladdered, yet go to France, where children are introduced to wine at a very early age, there isn't so much of a problem, to them having a drink is no big deal and drink is a lot more affordable there than here.
It is also illegal to sell to anyone who is intoxicated, pubs and clubs are obliged to refuse to sell to anyone they suspect of being drunk.
Of course if they did this a lot of bars and pubs would go out of business. When the existing laws have been enforced properly we should examine the results and then think about altering them.
Maybe if an under age child is caught behaving badly through drunkenness, they should spend the night in the cells, then be woken very early the next day and put to work clearing up vomit, discarded pizzas, kebabs and broken glass; doing this kind of thing with a raging hangover might take some of the glory out of drinking?
Driving ages should be arbitrary, how about making it dependant on passing an intelligence test, completing 6 months of cycling then moped riding before being allowed to get a provisional car licence? people would learn more about road sense this way.
Also, any driver who has held a full licence for less than 12 months should have to start again as a learner if they are convicted of careless or dangerous driving, this to follow a mandatory 6 month ban.
People might take a bit more care if it came to more than a fine, after all, younger drivers have more disposable income than older people and a 拢60 fine doesn't really do much to deter them.
I think this is an attack on young, law abiding adults who have done nothing wrong!
Answers:
The Americans will be confused with your question because the drinking age is already 21 in the USA and they don't know enough about any other country to understand your question must be from Canada or some other country with a drinking age of 19.
I always found it funny that we(in Canada) are old enough to vote and die in a war at 18, but we are considered mature enough to drive at 16 and not mature enough to drink untill 19. I think all of these are things you should be able to do when you reach an age where you can think for yourself and are responsible enough to use these responsibilities wisely.
If you don't think an 18 year old is mature enough to handle his/her drink, then why should an 18 year old be trusted in knowing enough about the political landscape to vote or why should an 18 year old be sent off to a foreign land to do things and witness things that would blow the mind of a 30 year old? If 18 and 19 year olds are considered responsible enough to vote, fight and drink at these ages, why are 16 year olds considered mature enough to be behind the wheel of a big piece of rubber, plastic, glass and steel? Personally, I was a much more agressive driver untill my earlier 20's before I mellowed it out. At the time I thought it was literally dicrimination against youth, that I had to pay such high insurance rates, but now in my 30's, after reading the stories week after week of young drivers being killed and killing others in street racing and other agressive driving(also cell-phone use), I think that the minimum age for drivers should be ATLEAST 18.
I understand how you can see it as an attack against young adults and I would have seen it your way when I was 18. Remember all the times your parents wouldn't let you out past a certain time, or wouldn't let you go to a certain place...they only did that because they wanted you to be safe. Being able to drive at 16 is maybe alittle old-fashioned. It is no longer the 16 year old driving the family's wood-panelled station-wagon, worried to death he will put a scratch in it and face the wrath of his dad. It is now the young kid driving his parent's BMW or his very own (parent bought) Honda Civic, that can go 0-60 in a twitch of the toe and can go in excess of 200 km/h. I think it's about time that the minimum age to drive be increased by atleast 2 years from 16. As far as changing the age of drinking, don't change a thing, and party on. It's also good for the environment to make teens wait untill adulthood to drive because that is 2 more years of public transit.
34, didn't bother to get my license untill 20 when I got my first car. Step-mom wouldn't let me drive the family cars. 95 Neon, what a nightmare!!
What country are you in because the legal drinking age in the states is 21. and yes kids shouldn't be allowed to drive until they are 18
i second the first answer
look at the statistics most people who die in accidents are young people through either drink driving or drug driving i think ts a very good idea also think people should be made to take a seperate test for motorway driving
You are obviously under 21 otherwise you would be agreeing with this idea. I agree that in the UK the drinking age should be raised to 20 and they driving age to 18.
in Australia yeah? well i haven't ever heard about this once. and it sounds stupid. you cant make people who have been driving for a year stop driving. sure the MINORITY of people abuse this but most of us need to drive to carry on with our lives.
the drinking this is laughable. you can drive a car, you can buy a gun, you can have sex, raise a family but you can't drink a beer?
When young people begin to act their age then maybe they wont have to keep raising the age.
The fact is most 21 year olds act like fifteen year olds so why should they have any privileges
a better idea is to outlaw alcohol then we wouldn't have as many of our youth killed as or because of a drunk driver.there would also be a lot less fights started over nothing and people wouldn't be so afraid to walk home past the local watering hole.i understand your point of the loss of entertainment for the innocent but after a few drinks anyone has the ability to get super stupid.
am 34 from uk and think its a great idea, i passed last year btw.
I'd like to point out that if these laws were to be passed, things would become A LOT more inconvenient for a VERY large number of people. I'm not just talking about high school students who need to attend extracurricular activities and whatnot. You need to think about the parents, too, who are going to have to sacrifice work time to pick up and drive their kids places. Or the various clubs and organizations that will have to provide rides or reschedule their events because a kid's dad doesn't get home til 7.
Yes, all those drunk driving/motor accident statistics other people have spouted are all true, and I agree, young people are a menace to the highways. Yet, as cold as this sounds as it deals with human life, when it comes down to cost and benefits, 18 is just not a practical limit for driving. Don't get me wrong, it would be nice, but it's just too impractical.
And I bet all those people supporting this measure without second thought would've thrown a fit if they were still 16 and this law was in place. But tis the selfish nature of stupid people.
I think its stupid. It wont solve any problems. The only problems we have is the government - if we changed them our country would improve.
Passed driving test: 17
Actually the UK, US, Canada, etc...YA! all get mashed together sometimes.
Im reading this from the US site.
They driving age should be 16 and everything else should be 18. Being able to fight in a war at 18, but not drink a beer is quite insane. Young people are smarter than you think. I am dependent on my car and I'm only 16 and like someone else mentioned, my parents cant cart me around to all my extracurriculars, and I live in a suburban area with not a great public transportation system. Of course if this law passed, it would not take away from people who already have their license and what not, but it would become effective at a certain time to certain people. Teenagers have minds and are not inferior to adults... you were once young too.
I'm in favour of it. I think the driving age should be 21 as well as the drinking age.
There are far too many yobbos, scumbags and boy racers out on the street ruining life for everybody.
I think there should also be a 7pm curfew for all under 18's. If you are out after dark you should be shot on sight. It is the only way to rid ourselves of the human filth (yobs, gangs of hoodies etc.)
Raising the age of drinking will make little difference because it's so easy to get hold of alcohol.And it might make teenagers drink out of rebellion which is surely worse tahn drinking legally.
Raising the age of driving surely won't make any difference either.Young drivers seem to get into trouble because they get "cocky" after they've passed their test.It might even become a worse problem because they've had to wait longer.
Its not the age that causes problems, its attitudes. Introduce kids to alcohol much younger, perhaps early teens and let them become responsable with it under supervision.
As for driving, the current attitude is learn to pass the test, not learn to drive. I say bring the age down to learn to drive on public roads to 15 or 16. Teach it to kids as part of their GCSE's, even if its just on simulators and on the playgrounds rather then the road.
Increasing the ages just means the same people die slightly older.
Phsycological testing for drivers as well and regular eye testing for drivers would go a long way to heling safety.
I am 21 and passed at 17.
The age for purchasing alcohol in UK is 18years normally 16 years with food which I think your referring to .The age for drinking alcohol in UK law is actually 5 years old.As the age of majority(legal adulthood) is 18 years it could cause problems for any government bring this law in as 18 year olds can vote and could cost the government to loose a large amount of votes.The driving age is OK as it is ,though many are immature it necessary that young people learn to drive as the skills gained are necessary for the sake of society in general.Drivers are needed to work in many essential jobs and of course services such as police and ambulance.
Since some American %26 Canadian contributors have joined this UK site I'll try to include %26 recognise their input.. So many factors are involved. Ironically in Manitoba, Quebec %26 Alberta Provinces the legal drinking age is actually 18 and Alberta is currently debating raising the drinking age to 19, a previous attempt a few years back failed. ( Google 'alberta drinking age ' for more info ) Youngsters rightly point out they can be taxed, go to war %26 use a gun but not be allowed to buy alcohol. Alcohol related trouble is now so often not 'just' a fight, but a fight to the death be it kicking, stamping, guns or knives. So many factors, I'd be inclined to leave the drinking age as it is but not allow unsupervised under 18's into pubs, they can legally go in unaccompanied at 16yrs in England even though they are not allowed to buy alcohol and can only drink alcohol with a meal and when accompanied by an adult who must buy and supervise them. In England we should make pub age ID entry cards compulsory, not just advisable, this is somethging America and Canada do try to enforce better than us. I'd increase a real Police presence, not community support wardens etc. and let the judiciary imposed real appropriate sentences across a host of ilegal anti-social activiites, not just alcohol related ones.
As for driving ages, lets recognise the difficulties of getting around, if research reveals real problems in raising the age instead restrict the power of the engine, make displaying a P plate compulsory and no passengers to be carried except those with a new 'senior' licence which would be issued at say 21yrs. Again real Policemen using discretion in enforcing and encouraging proper driving standards, not cash generating speed cameras.
It doesn't matter what the age limit is, someone will always try to break it.
Why should responsible drinkers suffer for the acts of moronic children? Maybe if the police enforced the existing laws more strictly we wouldn't need further legislation. It is illegal to sell alcohol to under 18s, or for anyone to buy it on behalf of minors.
Making it more expensive wouldn't make much difference, as we already have some of the most expensive drinks in the world. We have to alter attitudes to drinking, kids of 14 see it as a badge of honour to get bladdered, yet go to France, where children are introduced to wine at a very early age, there isn't so much of a problem, to them having a drink is no big deal and drink is a lot more affordable there than here.
It is also illegal to sell to anyone who is intoxicated, pubs and clubs are obliged to refuse to sell to anyone they suspect of being drunk.
Of course if they did this a lot of bars and pubs would go out of business. When the existing laws have been enforced properly we should examine the results and then think about altering them.
Maybe if an under age child is caught behaving badly through drunkenness, they should spend the night in the cells, then be woken very early the next day and put to work clearing up vomit, discarded pizzas, kebabs and broken glass; doing this kind of thing with a raging hangover might take some of the glory out of drinking?
Driving ages should be arbitrary, how about making it dependant on passing an intelligence test, completing 6 months of cycling then moped riding before being allowed to get a provisional car licence? people would learn more about road sense this way.
Also, any driver who has held a full licence for less than 12 months should have to start again as a learner if they are convicted of careless or dangerous driving, this to follow a mandatory 6 month ban.
People might take a bit more care if it came to more than a fine, after all, younger drivers have more disposable income than older people and a 拢60 fine doesn't really do much to deter them.
Racist co-worker?
my friend works for a prominent firm. They've hired a guy from the Netherlands and address some of the employs by his or her origin i.e that black guy, that korean girl, that spanish guy. The firm repremanded him and told him that that is inappropriate and its consider a racial statement. He got offened and said that Americans are so sensitive. feedback?
Answers:
I don't think he's necessarily racist, just not programmed to political correctness and label sensitivity as we are in our culture. He should be open to learning how to get along in a different country; being offended because his ways aren't ours doesn't help anyone.
Are you sure he actually knows the peoples names and can remember them.
I think, sometimes we are. maybe theres more to it. everyone was raised with rules and expectations, and they carry those on in life. maybe he really dosent mean any of those comments and he is just bad with names.
I agree ! The firm is right to repremand him!
How would he like it if someone called him whitey .
People have names ! You do not talk down to them .
Actually funny I met quite a few outspoken racist from the netherlands and I let them know outfront that it was pure ignorance they were showing
Answers:
I don't think he's necessarily racist, just not programmed to political correctness and label sensitivity as we are in our culture. He should be open to learning how to get along in a different country; being offended because his ways aren't ours doesn't help anyone.
Are you sure he actually knows the peoples names and can remember them.
I think, sometimes we are. maybe theres more to it. everyone was raised with rules and expectations, and they carry those on in life. maybe he really dosent mean any of those comments and he is just bad with names.
I agree ! The firm is right to repremand him!
How would he like it if someone called him whitey .
People have names ! You do not talk down to them .
Actually funny I met quite a few outspoken racist from the netherlands and I let them know outfront that it was pure ignorance they were showing
Racism is often equated with the confederacy. Do you think this is valid?
In my opinion, the south was in violation of the constitutional axiom that "all men are created equal". Thus, as members states of the union, slavery should not have become institutionalized.
But the issue that led to Lincoln's war of agression was NOT slavery. The issue of the war was the rights of the states over the federal government which was encroaching into areas prohibited by the 10th amendment.
If the south had abolished slavery before the end of the war, it would have taken the wind out of Lincoln's sails and the right side would have won the war and we would have a functional Constitutional Republic without slavery today.
Both sides were wrong, but confederacy is a good form of government, and not at all associated with slavery.
Answers:
No.
i read a book about Lincoln, and I think the stuff we're taught in school is all wrong about him and his "motivations" to stop slavery. It put forth a good case that he only stopped slavery to get more control of the South. It's very convincing.
racism was everywhere,it was possibly more prevelant in the south. as far as the slavery issue,read the confederacys constitution
didn't read your rant...rebs are wrong, always have been
Race was only one factor in the confederacy.
Slavery at the time was considered an economic matter, not a social matter. (Certainly, there were many who saw through the economics to the underlying moral issues, but the reason people owned slaves was to better themselves and their families economically.)
No. I don't think the confederacy should be linked to racism. Look at the time it was in. All of America was racist.
It's about time someone on here actually knows what they are talking about. You'll never get any credit for it though with all the ignorant PC people on this website.
The Confederate Government had little to do with slavery because few people in the south actually had slaves. On top of that many slaves worked voluntarily because there life here as a slave was alot better than it had been in their native countries.
Valid points, but historians have made it all about race. Actually if our founding fathers had not been racist the Civil War would not have been at all about slavery.
But, the South was very wrong about slavery and it still took another hundred years to make any headway abolishing discrimination against blacks. It still isn't over.
you would be hard pressed to provide numbers to substantiate the notion that there were equal numbers of slaves in the north and the south...
on top of that, lets review what took place in the south during civil rights movement, and the countless widespread acts of racism such as the church burnings...
the south is rightfully known as racist friendly territory. ...civil war or no civil war
I think your question and theory are seriously flawed. First of all, the states' rights issue was dwarfed by the taxation issues. The states wanted to tax each others' good in transit, something forbidden under the commerce clause.
Morever the North was just a racist as the South.
Finally, the Constitution was written noting very clearly that slaves were to be counted as 3/5ths of a person for taxation purposes.
Article I, Section 2, Cl. 3 of the Constitution provides:
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New-York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three.
This provision was abolished by the post-civil war amendments 13, 14 and 15 to the Constitution.
Prior to the civil war the states controlled whether they permitted or forbade slavery. However, slavery was not prohibited by the Federal constitution.
for people like myself the insinuation of confederacy and slavery is offensive because it is my heritage. and had lincoln let it be,slavery would have died on its own. he began his war of aggression using platforms of "a house divided cannot stand". in reality had he let it be,the csa and the usa could have been great allies.
Racism is a belief or doctrine that differences in physical appearance between people (such as those upon which the concept of race is based) determine cultural or individual achievement, and usually involve the idea that one's own 'race' is superior.
The confederacy protected slavery for persons of african decent, so in that regard it was racist (Had they permitted white slavery, they would not have been).
But I believe most northerners were racists at that time too. Also, slavery wasn't the only defining characteristic of the confederacy.
Slavery was not the reason that the VAST MAJORITY of southerns fought on the side of the Confederacy. Very few people owned slaves. If the war had been about slavery, then why did Lincoln wait until 1863 to free the slaves. And then Lincoln only "freed" the slaves in the states that had seceded from the Union. Lincoln needed a hook to win "World Opinion" to the side of the north. He was afraid of England entering the war on the side of the South. Anyone who enter the war on the side of the south after that would be branded as supporting slavery.
The power of the federal government to regulate trade was a major factor. Basically the North wanted a high import tariff - to protect their fledgling factory and industries. The South wanted to maintain a low tariff as their industry was agricultural and they HAD to import items.
The war had MANY MANY reasons and factors. Slavery was only one reason.
since only app, 3 or 4 % of the people in the south were wealthy enough to own a slave, and if the others did own a slave they could not have fed them, are you naive enough to believe that 96 % of the able bodied men in the south fought the civil war so the wealthy slave owner could keep his slaves? hell no they didn't they fought for states rights as every state was a independant country, by our constitution, but the northern textile manufacture wanted to pay $3 a bale for cotton, but, England and France would pay
14 to $18 per bale, when the south started shipping their cotton to England and France the northern Jew textile manufacture put pressure on Lincoln to stop it so lincoln sent ships to blockade southern docks and shipping that is when the south fired on Fort Sumpter, starting the civil war, mean while when lincoln instituted the draft the northern men were so busy hanging blacks from lamp poles they didn't have time to fight, so lincoln had fefugees from England , Irland, Germany and any where else he could get them to come to America and fight with the promise of free land and citizenship,only app, 5 to 7 % of the northern men actually fought for the north they didn't want to fight against their own kind and many relatives, also , slavery was on its way out any way as it was never very profitable, at that time a slave cost between $1500 and $3000 and sometimes as much as $6000 so how could it be profitable, but, by share cropping it was more profitable, and that is the direction they were moving, share cropping is still to this day a very profitable method, for both the land owner and the share cropper,
Racism, Slavery, and Southern States in American Civil War, are separate issues, with some overlap.
Canada is a Confederacy. The provinces have the right to leave if they want to.
Once upon a time Canada was 100% English speaking except for French majority in Quebec, who voted to have Quebec leave, because of all the discrimination against French speakers. If that had happened, it might have been the end for Canada ... look at a map of population distribution.
The rest of Canada recognized Quebec right to leave, did not want them to leave, so extraordinary actions were taken to eliminate Quebec grievances. Today Canada is bilingual, English and French. The Confederacy survived.
While all men were created equal, the US constitution at the time of the founding fathers also said that black men were fractions of white men, and that women had no rights to own property or vote..
Perhaps we read different history, but my understanding was one issue was whether or not a member of the Union of USA is allowed to leave once joined to the rest.
This is why Puerto Rico is appealing to the United Nations. This is why various Indian tribes are asking the UN to intervene in USA violating treaties.
Southern states thought they had the right to leave if they did not want to be members any more. Northern states thought no state had that right. So the South left, and there was a war over it, but Lincoln did not start that war.
In the American Civil War, it was the South that secceeded from the Union, and it was the South that started the war, by firing on Fort Sumpter. Maybe things would have been different if the South secceded and never declared war on the North.
The South had better generals.
The North had more troops.
Technology had improved things like accuracy and range of guns, while the troops had been trained based on the old techology.
That combined to make it a very bloody war.
I think that more died at Gettysburg than all the wars of the Napoleonic era.
But the issue that led to Lincoln's war of agression was NOT slavery. The issue of the war was the rights of the states over the federal government which was encroaching into areas prohibited by the 10th amendment.
If the south had abolished slavery before the end of the war, it would have taken the wind out of Lincoln's sails and the right side would have won the war and we would have a functional Constitutional Republic without slavery today.
Both sides were wrong, but confederacy is a good form of government, and not at all associated with slavery.
Answers:
No.
i read a book about Lincoln, and I think the stuff we're taught in school is all wrong about him and his "motivations" to stop slavery. It put forth a good case that he only stopped slavery to get more control of the South. It's very convincing.
racism was everywhere,it was possibly more prevelant in the south. as far as the slavery issue,read the confederacys constitution
didn't read your rant...rebs are wrong, always have been
Race was only one factor in the confederacy.
Slavery at the time was considered an economic matter, not a social matter. (Certainly, there were many who saw through the economics to the underlying moral issues, but the reason people owned slaves was to better themselves and their families economically.)
No. I don't think the confederacy should be linked to racism. Look at the time it was in. All of America was racist.
It's about time someone on here actually knows what they are talking about. You'll never get any credit for it though with all the ignorant PC people on this website.
The Confederate Government had little to do with slavery because few people in the south actually had slaves. On top of that many slaves worked voluntarily because there life here as a slave was alot better than it had been in their native countries.
Valid points, but historians have made it all about race. Actually if our founding fathers had not been racist the Civil War would not have been at all about slavery.
But, the South was very wrong about slavery and it still took another hundred years to make any headway abolishing discrimination against blacks. It still isn't over.
you would be hard pressed to provide numbers to substantiate the notion that there were equal numbers of slaves in the north and the south...
on top of that, lets review what took place in the south during civil rights movement, and the countless widespread acts of racism such as the church burnings...
the south is rightfully known as racist friendly territory. ...civil war or no civil war
I think your question and theory are seriously flawed. First of all, the states' rights issue was dwarfed by the taxation issues. The states wanted to tax each others' good in transit, something forbidden under the commerce clause.
Morever the North was just a racist as the South.
Finally, the Constitution was written noting very clearly that slaves were to be counted as 3/5ths of a person for taxation purposes.
Article I, Section 2, Cl. 3 of the Constitution provides:
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New-York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three.
This provision was abolished by the post-civil war amendments 13, 14 and 15 to the Constitution.
Prior to the civil war the states controlled whether they permitted or forbade slavery. However, slavery was not prohibited by the Federal constitution.
for people like myself the insinuation of confederacy and slavery is offensive because it is my heritage. and had lincoln let it be,slavery would have died on its own. he began his war of aggression using platforms of "a house divided cannot stand". in reality had he let it be,the csa and the usa could have been great allies.
Racism is a belief or doctrine that differences in physical appearance between people (such as those upon which the concept of race is based) determine cultural or individual achievement, and usually involve the idea that one's own 'race' is superior.
The confederacy protected slavery for persons of african decent, so in that regard it was racist (Had they permitted white slavery, they would not have been).
But I believe most northerners were racists at that time too. Also, slavery wasn't the only defining characteristic of the confederacy.
Slavery was not the reason that the VAST MAJORITY of southerns fought on the side of the Confederacy. Very few people owned slaves. If the war had been about slavery, then why did Lincoln wait until 1863 to free the slaves. And then Lincoln only "freed" the slaves in the states that had seceded from the Union. Lincoln needed a hook to win "World Opinion" to the side of the north. He was afraid of England entering the war on the side of the South. Anyone who enter the war on the side of the south after that would be branded as supporting slavery.
The power of the federal government to regulate trade was a major factor. Basically the North wanted a high import tariff - to protect their fledgling factory and industries. The South wanted to maintain a low tariff as their industry was agricultural and they HAD to import items.
The war had MANY MANY reasons and factors. Slavery was only one reason.
since only app, 3 or 4 % of the people in the south were wealthy enough to own a slave, and if the others did own a slave they could not have fed them, are you naive enough to believe that 96 % of the able bodied men in the south fought the civil war so the wealthy slave owner could keep his slaves? hell no they didn't they fought for states rights as every state was a independant country, by our constitution, but the northern textile manufacture wanted to pay $3 a bale for cotton, but, England and France would pay
14 to $18 per bale, when the south started shipping their cotton to England and France the northern Jew textile manufacture put pressure on Lincoln to stop it so lincoln sent ships to blockade southern docks and shipping that is when the south fired on Fort Sumpter, starting the civil war, mean while when lincoln instituted the draft the northern men were so busy hanging blacks from lamp poles they didn't have time to fight, so lincoln had fefugees from England , Irland, Germany and any where else he could get them to come to America and fight with the promise of free land and citizenship,only app, 5 to 7 % of the northern men actually fought for the north they didn't want to fight against their own kind and many relatives, also , slavery was on its way out any way as it was never very profitable, at that time a slave cost between $1500 and $3000 and sometimes as much as $6000 so how could it be profitable, but, by share cropping it was more profitable, and that is the direction they were moving, share cropping is still to this day a very profitable method, for both the land owner and the share cropper,
Racism, Slavery, and Southern States in American Civil War, are separate issues, with some overlap.
Canada is a Confederacy. The provinces have the right to leave if they want to.
Once upon a time Canada was 100% English speaking except for French majority in Quebec, who voted to have Quebec leave, because of all the discrimination against French speakers. If that had happened, it might have been the end for Canada ... look at a map of population distribution.
The rest of Canada recognized Quebec right to leave, did not want them to leave, so extraordinary actions were taken to eliminate Quebec grievances. Today Canada is bilingual, English and French. The Confederacy survived.
While all men were created equal, the US constitution at the time of the founding fathers also said that black men were fractions of white men, and that women had no rights to own property or vote..
Perhaps we read different history, but my understanding was one issue was whether or not a member of the Union of USA is allowed to leave once joined to the rest.
This is why Puerto Rico is appealing to the United Nations. This is why various Indian tribes are asking the UN to intervene in USA violating treaties.
Southern states thought they had the right to leave if they did not want to be members any more. Northern states thought no state had that right. So the South left, and there was a war over it, but Lincoln did not start that war.
In the American Civil War, it was the South that secceeded from the Union, and it was the South that started the war, by firing on Fort Sumpter. Maybe things would have been different if the South secceded and never declared war on the North.
The South had better generals.
The North had more troops.
Technology had improved things like accuracy and range of guns, while the troops had been trained based on the old techology.
That combined to make it a very bloody war.
I think that more died at Gettysburg than all the wars of the Napoleonic era.
Racial discrimination?
I recently reported the Director of Administration to the President of the Company for using the "N" word in my presense twice. Within days of reporting this and requesting that it be documented, my days at work have been a living hell. I am being retaliated against, I have been taken out of the department I have been in for 2years and placed in a position that I have no clue about. All of this within 72 hours. Can the employer do this?
Answers:
Hi there ... well, the bad news is ~ yes ~ an employer can do this ~ it is called "at will" employment. Meaning that most jobs without contracts or a union hire you at "will". This means they have a right to let you go for any valid reason and you have a right to leave for any valid reason. Although I feel you did the right thing and I seriously question the integrity of ANY company who allows someone in a Directors position to talk this way at work, if they want to they will find a way to get "rid" of you.
The best plan of action now is to do what the person above me said ... DOCUMENT ... EVERYTHING. Write detailed descriptions of everything negative that happens to you (times, date, etc...), but don't get caught doing it. This will be the main recourse you have for proving discrimination. Don't talk to anyone else at work about it for now . no matter what.
I had this EXACT same thing happen to me when I was pregnant and they waited until after I had the baby so they wouldn't look as bad. Bunch of a**holes! I couldn't do a thing about it because of the "at will" clause in my job offer.
I would still contact a labor attorney and tell them the scenario to see what they think. Find one that allows free consultations. I know there are laws protecting people if you've been at a job for a long time that supersede "at will" legalities, but you have to be there for like 15+ years or somehting like that.
Do you the think the president is also backing this? Is there someone higher?? The CEO? If it gets worse what do you have to lose? If you feel they're all in on it then just bide your time. You must hang in there long enough to document some solid facts. They did move you to a new position so that they can start writing you up for poor performance. That's exactly what happened to me.
If this gets worse then they are trying to make you quit so you can't retaliate. Hang in there no matter what. Once you have some strong documentation then you can let them know that if it doesn't stop you will go to the newspaper ... news channels ... whoever will listen. This would be some horrible publicity for them. But don't threaten this until its gets unbearable or they threaten you somehow ~ and you better be willing to do it - if you threaten to do it. I would ... it disgusts me that in this day and age we still see/hear stuff like this.
I give you serious kudos for having the guts to speak up against this blatant discrimination girl! Good for YOU! I am sorry this is the result, but someday you will look back on this and know you did the RIGHT thing. I will pray for you that it all works out for the best ... keep your chin up and don't let them break you down. Hey, do me a favor and email me (it's on my profile) and keep me posted. I want to know how it turns out for you. Also, if I can do anything else for ya ... feel free to ask!
Good luck and God Bless!
______________________________...
I was fired for calling someone a piece of ****, you're lucky you still have your job.
No they cannot. Go to the top of the company. Or call a local lawyer and see what your options are.Good luck.
Yes they can do it, but you need to document everything that has happened, now that you are in a new position that you know nothing about it will be easy for the to document your poor performance.
When you don't understand something,ASK questions, tell them that you have not been trained and document everything that was said. If you get laid off for your performance you will have a record of retaliation and a record of you complaint of racial remarks, you may have a valid lawsuit.
Seek the advice of an attorney, one that specializes in labor law would be best.
EDIT: Note to Mel, your employer can move you to any position that he feels necessary, but I think what you are saying is that they can't do it because of a complaint of racial slurs.
I like to thank you for having the courage to stand up against ignorance but the reality is, if the president of the company is not responding/doing anything about it then he is probably using the word in the same form of ignorance. There is basically nothing you can do, they will try to drive you out your job by either overwhelming you with difficult tasks or waiting for you to slip up. Legally, they can not do this but in order to catch them, you have to prove that your report is the "real" reason why you are suffering these "repercussions". Get a Lawyer, and sue! :)
they just did, didn't they? your word against his, and you're on the way out.
Answers:
Hi there ... well, the bad news is ~ yes ~ an employer can do this ~ it is called "at will" employment. Meaning that most jobs without contracts or a union hire you at "will". This means they have a right to let you go for any valid reason and you have a right to leave for any valid reason. Although I feel you did the right thing and I seriously question the integrity of ANY company who allows someone in a Directors position to talk this way at work, if they want to they will find a way to get "rid" of you.
The best plan of action now is to do what the person above me said ... DOCUMENT ... EVERYTHING. Write detailed descriptions of everything negative that happens to you (times, date, etc...), but don't get caught doing it. This will be the main recourse you have for proving discrimination. Don't talk to anyone else at work about it for now . no matter what.
I had this EXACT same thing happen to me when I was pregnant and they waited until after I had the baby so they wouldn't look as bad. Bunch of a**holes! I couldn't do a thing about it because of the "at will" clause in my job offer.
I would still contact a labor attorney and tell them the scenario to see what they think. Find one that allows free consultations. I know there are laws protecting people if you've been at a job for a long time that supersede "at will" legalities, but you have to be there for like 15+ years or somehting like that.
Do you the think the president is also backing this? Is there someone higher?? The CEO? If it gets worse what do you have to lose? If you feel they're all in on it then just bide your time. You must hang in there long enough to document some solid facts. They did move you to a new position so that they can start writing you up for poor performance. That's exactly what happened to me.
If this gets worse then they are trying to make you quit so you can't retaliate. Hang in there no matter what. Once you have some strong documentation then you can let them know that if it doesn't stop you will go to the newspaper ... news channels ... whoever will listen. This would be some horrible publicity for them. But don't threaten this until its gets unbearable or they threaten you somehow ~ and you better be willing to do it - if you threaten to do it. I would ... it disgusts me that in this day and age we still see/hear stuff like this.
I give you serious kudos for having the guts to speak up against this blatant discrimination girl! Good for YOU! I am sorry this is the result, but someday you will look back on this and know you did the RIGHT thing. I will pray for you that it all works out for the best ... keep your chin up and don't let them break you down. Hey, do me a favor and email me (it's on my profile) and keep me posted. I want to know how it turns out for you. Also, if I can do anything else for ya ... feel free to ask!
Good luck and God Bless!
______________________________...
I was fired for calling someone a piece of ****, you're lucky you still have your job.
No they cannot. Go to the top of the company. Or call a local lawyer and see what your options are.Good luck.
Yes they can do it, but you need to document everything that has happened, now that you are in a new position that you know nothing about it will be easy for the to document your poor performance.
When you don't understand something,ASK questions, tell them that you have not been trained and document everything that was said. If you get laid off for your performance you will have a record of retaliation and a record of you complaint of racial remarks, you may have a valid lawsuit.
Seek the advice of an attorney, one that specializes in labor law would be best.
EDIT: Note to Mel, your employer can move you to any position that he feels necessary, but I think what you are saying is that they can't do it because of a complaint of racial slurs.
I like to thank you for having the courage to stand up against ignorance but the reality is, if the president of the company is not responding/doing anything about it then he is probably using the word in the same form of ignorance. There is basically nothing you can do, they will try to drive you out your job by either overwhelming you with difficult tasks or waiting for you to slip up. Legally, they can not do this but in order to catch them, you have to prove that your report is the "real" reason why you are suffering these "repercussions". Get a Lawyer, and sue! :)
they just did, didn't they? your word against his, and you're on the way out.
Racial Discrimation from a customer at work place?
Is there any law that protects me against constant direct racial comments from a customer in the grocery store I work in?
Answers:
Yes, you should be able to report this to your manager and they should inform the customer to refrain from their racial slurs to anyone or they are no longer welcome on the premesis. Your manager can ban the customer from the premesis permanently, and if necessary call the police and have the person removed and possibily arrested for disorderly conduct.
If you report it and the manager does nothing, then report it to your Human Resources Dept. as the manager has to address hostilities in the workplace.
I don't know of any law but I would think the owner of the store has the right to ban that customer from the store.
Your manager has the responsibility of making his employees' job safe and free of harrassment. He can address the problem with the customer and if the problem persists, he can ban the person from the store.
Refuse him service.
As long as youre doing it for a legal reason (anything other than age, gender, sexual preference, race, religion, and maybe a couple others based on area) then youre fine. There isnt anything illegal about the guy abusing you, but your company should not stand for it. Tell him to leave, if he does not he is trespassing and can be arrested for that.
It's not discrimination, it's harassment and creating a hostile work environment. Tell your manager, because I'm sure it's against company and merchant policies, and if they don't do anything, file a complaint with corporate and the labor board in your area.
Answers:
Yes, you should be able to report this to your manager and they should inform the customer to refrain from their racial slurs to anyone or they are no longer welcome on the premesis. Your manager can ban the customer from the premesis permanently, and if necessary call the police and have the person removed and possibily arrested for disorderly conduct.
If you report it and the manager does nothing, then report it to your Human Resources Dept. as the manager has to address hostilities in the workplace.
I don't know of any law but I would think the owner of the store has the right to ban that customer from the store.
Your manager has the responsibility of making his employees' job safe and free of harrassment. He can address the problem with the customer and if the problem persists, he can ban the person from the store.
Refuse him service.
As long as youre doing it for a legal reason (anything other than age, gender, sexual preference, race, religion, and maybe a couple others based on area) then youre fine. There isnt anything illegal about the guy abusing you, but your company should not stand for it. Tell him to leave, if he does not he is trespassing and can be arrested for that.
It's not discrimination, it's harassment and creating a hostile work environment. Tell your manager, because I'm sure it's against company and merchant policies, and if they don't do anything, file a complaint with corporate and the labor board in your area.
Racial bias in Federal Government hiring practices; Are you surprised or indignant regarding the claims of?
discrimination against white in federal government hiring practices?
http://adversity.net/fed_stats/opm2007/d...
Answers:
If anything the Federal and State Governments give special consideration to minorities ! I personally living the freaking nightmare of being turned down for promotions or special assignments by minorities that were not qualified to be working not less promoted or be given high tech jobs because of the color of their skin! That's a fact ! affirmative action was never meant to hire and promote unqualified minority's, it was enacted to give them the opportunity to compete with other candidates. The States hired em like crazy passing over many super qualified whites, Hispanics etc.
then they did this because the Federal Government gave the states huge amounts of federal funding and grants. Now they're trying to find ways to fire the incompetents but, their in civil service and almost impossible to fire em now.
Not surprised at all. It amazes me when I see a racial makeup of only 12% of the population take up almost 50% of the jobs. Funny how that works.
Hiring should be based on SKILL. Skin color should mean nothing.
that just means they want you to go to iraq now signup and tour for your country patriot
Your liberal politicians at work. Left wingers just don't get it. The Democrats don't give a crap about this country or the people in it. Their agenda is votes. Period.
Oh, and as an aside to that agenda, keeping their fat, cushy jobs.
http://adversity.net/fed_stats/opm2007/d...
Answers:
If anything the Federal and State Governments give special consideration to minorities ! I personally living the freaking nightmare of being turned down for promotions or special assignments by minorities that were not qualified to be working not less promoted or be given high tech jobs because of the color of their skin! That's a fact ! affirmative action was never meant to hire and promote unqualified minority's, it was enacted to give them the opportunity to compete with other candidates. The States hired em like crazy passing over many super qualified whites, Hispanics etc.
then they did this because the Federal Government gave the states huge amounts of federal funding and grants. Now they're trying to find ways to fire the incompetents but, their in civil service and almost impossible to fire em now.
Not surprised at all. It amazes me when I see a racial makeup of only 12% of the population take up almost 50% of the jobs. Funny how that works.
Hiring should be based on SKILL. Skin color should mean nothing.
that just means they want you to go to iraq now signup and tour for your country patriot
Your liberal politicians at work. Left wingers just don't get it. The Democrats don't give a crap about this country or the people in it. Their agenda is votes. Period.
Oh, and as an aside to that agenda, keeping their fat, cushy jobs.
Race Crimes?
Are people too quick to label crimes as "race crimes" when they involve people of different ethnic backgrounds when it could just be labeled as a crime of opportunity?
Answers:
I agree that people do lable race crimes to quickly. in my town we have had several tradgic incidents in the highschool alone. We had a drug bust in which the town tried to lable racist because all but 3 of the boys caught were black. I think that most crimes are those of opportunity. We are no longer living in the 60s. I don't think people honestly go around thinking i'm going to rob that store because the owner is indian or i'm going to shot that man because his is white.
Yes
Yes... easiest way to get peoples attention.
sometimes
Absoutely. They may hate somebody because that person is a jerk, not because of their race.
yes
Absolutely. Most prosecutors will tell you that they don't care what motivated the person to commit a crime. They care about the facts of the case.
Let me ask this question. If a white person murders a white person and another white person murders a black person what is the difference? Murder is murder they are both equally bad. Why is it so much worse if it is a "hate crime"?
The problem lay in the invention of the term, not in its use. It's illegal to kill someone. Whether you do it because you don't like his skin or because you don't like his mustache doesn't really make much difference.
I can only think of one race crime: Ben Johnson's 100 meters at the Seoul Olympics, 1988.
If your take advantage of the opportunity based on the persons race or ethnic background then it is a race crime. But most of the time people label it a race crime quickly so that the law enforcement take it more seriously. If it is not labeled then it just another crime in the eyes of the law enforcers. And if the police don't take it serious then the victim can get different organizations to help push the law enforcers.
Yes, people are much too quick to jump to that conclusion.
There are race-motivated and prejudice-motivated crimes, but those are specific situations -- not every crime between different races is automatically race-motivated.
Not at all!
Here is how the pitiful justice system works: if the public opinion pays no attention, anything can happen; but, being putted under the lenses of the public opinion a trial stands better chances to be done by the book.
That racial issue is implied whenever someone feels he is being disfavored or that the other site might exploit cracks in the system.
The word racism is a fear tactic and everyone wants to jump in a hole in the ground and not be labeled racist. The minority community understands this and utilizes it to their advantage. Look at the LA riots after that moron Rodney King was jailed.
Race crimes, and "Hate Crimes" are really "Thought" Crimes. These serve two purposes:
1) Label political opponents as being racist
2) Punish folks for having unpopular views.
I am very surprised that the First Amendment has not been successfully used to strike down these laws.
Answers:
I agree that people do lable race crimes to quickly. in my town we have had several tradgic incidents in the highschool alone. We had a drug bust in which the town tried to lable racist because all but 3 of the boys caught were black. I think that most crimes are those of opportunity. We are no longer living in the 60s. I don't think people honestly go around thinking i'm going to rob that store because the owner is indian or i'm going to shot that man because his is white.
Yes
Yes... easiest way to get peoples attention.
sometimes
Absoutely. They may hate somebody because that person is a jerk, not because of their race.
yes
Absolutely. Most prosecutors will tell you that they don't care what motivated the person to commit a crime. They care about the facts of the case.
Let me ask this question. If a white person murders a white person and another white person murders a black person what is the difference? Murder is murder they are both equally bad. Why is it so much worse if it is a "hate crime"?
The problem lay in the invention of the term, not in its use. It's illegal to kill someone. Whether you do it because you don't like his skin or because you don't like his mustache doesn't really make much difference.
I can only think of one race crime: Ben Johnson's 100 meters at the Seoul Olympics, 1988.
If your take advantage of the opportunity based on the persons race or ethnic background then it is a race crime. But most of the time people label it a race crime quickly so that the law enforcement take it more seriously. If it is not labeled then it just another crime in the eyes of the law enforcers. And if the police don't take it serious then the victim can get different organizations to help push the law enforcers.
Yes, people are much too quick to jump to that conclusion.
There are race-motivated and prejudice-motivated crimes, but those are specific situations -- not every crime between different races is automatically race-motivated.
Not at all!
Here is how the pitiful justice system works: if the public opinion pays no attention, anything can happen; but, being putted under the lenses of the public opinion a trial stands better chances to be done by the book.
That racial issue is implied whenever someone feels he is being disfavored or that the other site might exploit cracks in the system.
The word racism is a fear tactic and everyone wants to jump in a hole in the ground and not be labeled racist. The minority community understands this and utilizes it to their advantage. Look at the LA riots after that moron Rodney King was jailed.
Race crimes, and "Hate Crimes" are really "Thought" Crimes. These serve two purposes:
1) Label political opponents as being racist
2) Punish folks for having unpopular views.
I am very surprised that the First Amendment has not been successfully used to strike down these laws.
R U an ex police officer who is disgruntled with the VP and would like to help another in a similar situation?
Answers:
Be prepared for a call from the US Secret Service as to your intentions. Otherwise, have fun attempting anything %26 post a date for us to watch CNN for your arrest!
VP? as in Vice President Dick Cheney? I am not a cop but your question interests me. Anymore details you can give?
Quotation oflaw which restricts carrying pets into supermarkets in Washington state?
what is Washington state ordinance or laws governing same.
Answers:
Can't find a state law for that. There could be county and/or city ordinances. And typically stores would set that as their policy to avoid liability issues even without a law. (Although they cannot refuse entrance to service dogs in Washington.) Stores are private businesses and entitled to allow or forbid animals (other than service).
Home Depot in WA used to allow dogs, but some customers complained and they decided to change their policy a few years ago.
Stores may ban the entry of pets other than service animals (for example, dogs guiding the blind).
Answers:
Can't find a state law for that. There could be county and/or city ordinances. And typically stores would set that as their policy to avoid liability issues even without a law. (Although they cannot refuse entrance to service dogs in Washington.) Stores are private businesses and entitled to allow or forbid animals (other than service).
Home Depot in WA used to allow dogs, but some customers complained and they decided to change their policy a few years ago.
Stores may ban the entry of pets other than service animals (for example, dogs guiding the blind).
Questions to ask when signing a recording contract?
i was wondering if anybody had any ideas of stuff i should ask when singing a recording contract so i dont get screwed over btw if anybody works with a rap label contact me at burndarap10@aol.com Thx
Answers:
DO NOT sign it without FIRST taking it to your OWN attorney. Period.
Also, ask who owns the intellectual property. IT SHOULD BE YOU, and not anyone else.
I have a LOT of experience with this, and you should NEVER sign a recording contract without first taking it to your own attorney. If the recording company objects to you doing this, then you do NOT want to sign with them.
I agree with the first answerer about making sure you consult your own attorney.
Also, considering the current atmosphere of the recording industry and the RIAA (the issue of lawsuits), I would seek a label which is NOT affiliated with that association.
Answers:
DO NOT sign it without FIRST taking it to your OWN attorney. Period.
Also, ask who owns the intellectual property. IT SHOULD BE YOU, and not anyone else.
I have a LOT of experience with this, and you should NEVER sign a recording contract without first taking it to your own attorney. If the recording company objects to you doing this, then you do NOT want to sign with them.
I agree with the first answerer about making sure you consult your own attorney.
Also, considering the current atmosphere of the recording industry and the RIAA (the issue of lawsuits), I would seek a label which is NOT affiliated with that association.
Questions on abortion and crime?
1) Does abortion result in more crime, less crime, or have no effect? Why? Please give specifics and sources if possible.
2) Does your answer effect your views on abortion? Why? How?
Please don't try to guess my views. I'm trying to determine yours. thanks.
Answers:
I don't see a correlation between crimes and abortion. To be honest with you.
1 -- I consider abortion murder, and therefore a crime. However, typically the babies that would not have been aborted tend to commit more crimes, so even with all the "murders" the end result is less crime.
2 -- No, it does not. I'm going for the long shot: every conceived baby should have parents to look forward to, and all parents conceiving babies should look forward to having kids. I guess responsibility loses out to abortion, but I'll still cling to my utopian vision.
1. More, there have been instances where people walked into these clinics in the name of pro life and have taken others lives.
2. No, i'm pro choice under most circumstances. Only one I disagree with is using it as a contraceptive measure.
Abortion has no effect on crime. They are not related concepts. I guess if you look at this way it may have an effect: The babies that would have been born without abortion would grow up poor, unloved, and not taken care of (for the most part), so they will be more likely to commit crimes growing up in those conditions.
But I don't think that abortion itself causes more or less crime.
2) Does your answer effect your views on abortion? Why? How?
Please don't try to guess my views. I'm trying to determine yours. thanks.
Answers:
I don't see a correlation between crimes and abortion. To be honest with you.
1 -- I consider abortion murder, and therefore a crime. However, typically the babies that would not have been aborted tend to commit more crimes, so even with all the "murders" the end result is less crime.
2 -- No, it does not. I'm going for the long shot: every conceived baby should have parents to look forward to, and all parents conceiving babies should look forward to having kids. I guess responsibility loses out to abortion, but I'll still cling to my utopian vision.
1. More, there have been instances where people walked into these clinics in the name of pro life and have taken others lives.
2. No, i'm pro choice under most circumstances. Only one I disagree with is using it as a contraceptive measure.
Abortion has no effect on crime. They are not related concepts. I guess if you look at this way it may have an effect: The babies that would have been born without abortion would grow up poor, unloved, and not taken care of (for the most part), so they will be more likely to commit crimes growing up in those conditions.
But I don't think that abortion itself causes more or less crime.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)