Again you're confusing beliefs with actions. And within consecutive sentences, too.

Maybe you should take your head out of your arse and put it somewhere useful?

This thread is philosophical. My thoughts are as valid as anyone elses and your condescending attitude is quite frankly, pretty boring. You have no right to tell me where I should and shouldn't post. If you don't like my comments then comment on them. I'm pretty sure I'm not the first person to tell you to talk about the post and not the poster.

UG...perhaps my views are 'mired in moral equivalency' but I have seen my children suffer at the hands of racist people and the children of such people. I have no sympathy for any misfortune suffered by a person because of their racist beliefs, thoughts or actions.

The repubican party?:stickpoke

That kind of mindless relativism is what makes liberal politics such a joke these days. Your thoughts are as valid as the logic behind them, no more and no less. Simply having them does not embue them with some kind of birthright of validity.

I did. Your post isn't about the legal issue that the thread is about. Civil rights is a legal issue.

2b is the only part of the definition that's in your favor. That's 1/2 of 25% of the definition, making you 87.5% wrong.

Her thoughts may be inaccurate or incorrect, yet valid. They were executed with proper authority and formalities, are relevant and meaningful, and are appropriate to the end in view. That's 2 1/2 parts of the definition in her favor, making her 62.5% right. :p

You're seriously arguing that her statement that she doesn't care about legalities meets meaning "having legal efficacy or force"?

Congratulations, in trying to establish 1 you've completely abandoned your own claim to 2b.

And 2a requires both meaning and relevance. Surely they must mean something, but my original point was they had no relevence.

If thoughts are somehow "valid" simply because someone has them--which is the claim behind "as valid as anybody else's"--then "valid" has become an empty tautology.

Do you usually expect every usage of a word to comport with all the glossed meanings? In that case there are some words you won't ever be able to use at all.

I think you're thinking of the old Klan. The new Klan does want political power, but they want to get it the old fashioned way ... by getting elected.

What Wolf says above is partly why I backpedaled a bit on my stance. Although I despise bigots and racists, they aren't technically illegal. I Do believe that a police officer or other person of public power will eventually trip over the discrimination laws if they hold racist beliefs.

A big part of the issue here is that the KKK cannot be classified as a 'subversive' group which is defined as a group whose intent is to violently overthrow the goverment. In fact, the KKK proports to be strongly 'pro' constitution/government/god and their actions are intended to eliminate the less-than-aryan elements in their country because that is what is best for it (in their distorted view). So it would be impossible to fire someone based on their membership because belonging to the KKK isn't illegal (since the KKK isn't illegal). But watch them closely. They WILL slip up and treat someone with discrimination, THEN you can fire them.

Civil Rights is also a moral and social issue. If I choose to post on the moral or social issue rather than the legal issue, that is MY right and you have NO right to tell me that I don't have this right because you have no authority over me.

If one is to only consider the legality of any issue, then one would be in a very tenuous position, particularly if the issue affects different people in different ways. Laws are created, ammended and rewritten entirely on the basis that society is constantly evolving and viewpoints changing. If people in said society do not express their personal views on social issues, the law remains the same and it is likely that some sectors of that society will be discriminated against.

So, pardon me for not arguing the law as it stands now. Perhaps I should simply have said that the law is wrong and I believe that no person who is a member of a group which advocates discrimination against another [group] should be entitled to hold a position of authority in any capacity for a government office.

You can argue the legality of the issue all you like as it stands now. It would probably be more beneficial if you decided to have the courage to simply state that racism is wrong in any form and that people need to be taught that there are better ways of living.

I have the right to rag on you about it, which is exactly what I did.

"Civil Rights"-- which was the 1960's code word for antidiscrimination--is in fact a legal issue. And, despite what too many people seem to believe, the purpose of law isn't to enforce ethics or morals. It's a system to make it possible for people who hold differing values (and hence hold different beliefs about ethics and morality) to live in the same society without killing each other. You can't find sufficient agreement on ethics and morality to run a society bigger than one or two dozen people. (Those are usually called "cults", by the way).

To scale bigger than that you need a system for regulating behavior that most folks can agree on and that most folks interpret in something like the same way. Notice that I said "regulating behavior" not "regulating beliefs" or "regulating thoughts".

Unless one is a judge, in which case one is doing exactly what one should do. That's what the original post was about.
I don't need to argue the legality; it is what it is. and the arbitrator, the judge in the case, and several of the posters in this thread understand that.

It's you that has the argument, because you want the legal power to pillory people for what they think. Orwell called that thoughtcrime. The sad thing is that you seem to have exactly zero appreciation for how dangerous that would be.

Of course, as long as it's only thoughts you disapprove of that are forbidden, everything's OK.

Your argument is that it's wrong for me to think that people who act or could act in a discriminatory manner should not be eligible for public positions of authority.

Seems like a contradiction to me that this officer can be protected because he only thinks that white races are superior to black.

The US is not a Democracy and never has been and I sure hope we never are.
Sure, stay out of the business is no problem, while they are at it don't buy our goods, don't use our tech (pharmaceutical, medical, agricultural, textile, military, etc, etc, etc...) don't come running to us every time someone bigger than them starts to kick their assess, don't send their kids here for school, don't come here when they get sick, don't, don't don't... that blade cuts both ways.
I'm sick of how bad we are to everyone while they use and use and use... don't like the US, fine, fuck-ya', stay the hell away from every aspect of the US. They bitch when they say we are the world police, then bitch when we don't get involved in everything... personally, I think we should just pull-up all roots, come home and take care of our own from now on.

If one discriminates against fascists they are EXACTLY like them... they ARE one. It is so simple.
The laws of the UK, Italy, Germany and the others are facism... the hilarious thing is that it empowers the hate groups. They thrive on adversity and being the "underdog". Being given that kind of attention is validation for them. The "outlaw" status it gives them adds attraction to them for the kinds of youth that they seek and attract... so incredibly stupid, so predictable. They might as well have put them in office.

rksenrage...I see your point and agree totally. I wish the same were true here in Australia. I see many problems that should be attended to here and wonder often why our country is involved in conflicts simply because someone said, come and help us out. Why not help our own citizens instead?

I believe it's because we're part of the global community and in short, what happens in other countries affects us if not directly then indirectly; whether we're involved or not.

My point previously to you was that there are different schools of thought on everything, and for every positive there's a negative. There has to be balance. Without evil there cannot be good. Without positives there can be no negatives.

I don't claim to have a broad knowledge of politics. The only thing I do claim to be is thoughtful about the effects political actions can have on individuals. In my view, it's the individuals that matter most, but it's the individuals that get lost in the crowd.

I also agree that the 'political correctness' evident in some policies of some countries is crazy.