Islam's George Floyd?

[Gerarddm]

#17: Yes, of course, my bad. Whenever I hear 'Islam', I reflexively think Saudi Arabia since that is where Mecca is.

I still don't have a positive feeling about Islam no matter where it is practiced.

[Osborne Russell]

Is Putin’s “soul” worth that of Mahsa Amini? I’d say no and I’d hope you would as well. So then it’s just a matter of degree. And perhaps my tolerance for habitual criminals is lower than yours.

So no, I have no particular hostility towards GF, but no particular love as well. I have far more respect for The lady in question though, and yes, I consider her more worthy of my respect.

But of course, I don’t believe in a soul, and think the actions of a life actually matter.

It's not a matter of respect, it's a matter of right.

Floyd: denied procedural due process in the course of his arrest, on a charge whose legitimacy is unquestioned.

Iran woman: denied procedural due process in the course of her arrest, on a charge whose legitimacy is denied; AKA substantive due process.

Substantive due process means the law asserted is invalid. The just powers of government are barred from reaching the conduct alleged. That being so, no amount of the most scrupulous procedure can help; the substance is being violated; the prosecution is illegal.

They could have not beaten her; they could have furnished a stipend to her and her family during the proceedings; they could have furnished her with the most awesome defense attorney in the world, and five years to prepare; grief counseling, manicurist, you name it, paid in front -- the prosecution is illegal. The charge reaches something the law is not allowed to touch by any procedure: liberty.

It was the premise of Roe v. Wade. It wasn't involved in George Floyd. No matter. The analogy is to due process, all of it; specifically the people's rightful demand for it, for which they are prepared to sacrifice.

"Substantive due process" is a stupid term that obscures the issue. What it means is liberty.

[Decourcy]

I guess some people see all people as equally valuable. I don’t. Everyone starts the same, but how you live and how you treat others changes your worth up or down. So yes, it is a matter of respect, and disrespect.

[Osborne Russell]

Everyone starts the same and remains the same, for pertinent purposes. Respect for that is the respect that matters.

[Decourcy]

Everyone starts the same and remains the same, for pertinent purposes. Respect for that is the respect that matters.

Nope.

[Osborne Russell]

How are the rights one was born with reduced by the unfolding of time?

[Decourcy]

How are the rights one was born with reduced by the unfolding of time?

Actions can reduce my willingness, and that of a civilized society, to respect or grant them. The Russian soldiers thieving and raping and murdering (as an example) have very little room to insist on their “rights” at this point.

[Osborne Russell]

Actions can reduce my willingness, and that of a civilized society, to respect or grant them. The Russian soldiers thieving and raping and murdering (as an example) have very little room to insist on their “rights” at this point.

Neither you nor society grants them. They are inherent in existence.

If Russians are captured, Ukrainians cannot bite their noses off. The captured Russian has a right to his nose.

[Peerie Maa]

How are the rights one was born with reduced by the unfolding of time?

You are not born with any rights.
The society that you are born into decides what rights you have.

[Keith Wilson]

Neither you nor society grants them. They are inherent in existence. If Russians are captured, Ukrainians cannot bite their noses off. The captured Russian has a right to his nose.

Well - sort of. 'Human rights' are ideas about right and wrong behavior toward other humans. The Ukranians could chop the noses off captured Russians if they were so inclined; there's nothing in the laws of nature preventing them. It would be a violation of human rights - i.e., it would be wrong - but they certainly could.

[Decourcy]

Neither you nor society grants them. They are inherent in existence.

If Russians are captured, Ukrainians cannot bite their noses off. The captured Russian has a right to his nose.

No. Rights are a construct fought for.

[skuthorp]

So Decourcy 'rights' are negotiable, conditional, even fashionable and decided by whom?
"Actions can reduce my willingness, and that of a civilized society, to respect or grant them."
Actions can reduce willingness, and that of an authoritarian society, to respect or grant them applies equally as well. As soon as rights are negotiable then the lowest conmon denominator eventually applies….. and Niemollers verse applies……….
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me..

[Decourcy]

So Decourcy 'rights' are negotiable, conditional, even fashionable and decided by whom?
"Actions can reduce my willingness, and that of a civilized society, to respect or grant them."
Actions can reduce willingness, and that of an authoritarian society, to respect or grant them applies equally as well. As soon as rights are negotiable then the lowest conmon denominator eventually applies….. and Niemollers verse applies……….
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me..

Some reductions in rights are justifiable to reasonable people, some are not. Standards of reasonable are surprising universal. Don’t be silly.

[BrianW]

How many times to I have to say “he should not have died undergoing arrest” before I stop hearing that somehow I’m justifying his death?

It doesn't matter what you write, because even plain english in writing will be misconstrued and twisted to meet the needs of liberals. Or in this case, anyone who has disagreed with something you've said in the past.

Don't sweat it... I did for years, and it gained me nothing.

[L.W. Baxter]

i felt prompted to do a quick look back at the rittenhouse verdict thread.

it's all there. decourcy trumpeting the letter of law victory, defending rittenhouse from the same kind of moral judgement he lays on george floyd, on the basis that kyle's actions were "self defense". "don't like the law? change it". well, decourcy, george floyd was innocent until proven guilty. that's the law, the real and unmistakable one. to whom you apply your moral indignation is instructive.

and brian w smearing the rittenhouse shooting victims the same way he smears george floyd. what do you want and expect from the membership, brian? here's a brownie button for consistency.

[L.W. Baxter]

i remember your old tag line, brian. "....small minds talk about people".

well, your focus on george floyd's character is precisely small-minded. talking about a person and ignoring the idea.

[Osborne Russell]

No. Rights are a construct fought for.

Fought for on the basis that they are inalienable. Not based on a construct. Based on fact. If you go down the road of fact being a construct and aren't careful, you'll wind up post-modern. Meanwhile you'll have lost your rights.

[Andrew Craig-Bennett]

Should we start a new thread on events in Iran?

[Decourcy]

i felt prompted to do a quick look back at the rittenhouse verdict thread.

it's all there. decourcy trumpeting the letter of law victory, defending rittenhouse from the same kind of moral judgement he lays on george floyd, on the basis that kyle's actions were "self defense". "don't like the law? change it". well, decourcy, george floyd was innocent until proven guilty. that's the law, the real and unmistakable one. to whom you apply your moral indignation is instructive.

and brian w smearing the rittenhouse shooting victims the same way he smears george floyd. what do you want and expect from the membership, brian? here's a brownie button for consistency.

I never “trumpeted” anything, although I did say that in my opinion he was correct. Because I believe in the right to self defend, whether as a person or a country, against attack. You agreed with the right of the Ukraine to defend, but not Rittenhouse. You say Rittenhouse instigated the action yet you say it doesn’t matter what the ukraine did or did not do before the invasion. Before you create the image of hypocrisy in others, look in the mirror.

[Osborne Russell]

Should we start a new thread on events in Iran?

Thirty one provinces, cities, forty one dead? In one week. Sounds like a construct is needs constructing.

[Decourcy]

Should we start a new thread on events in Iran?

No need. I’ll just ignore this one and let the subject get back on track.

[Osborne Russell]

No need. I’ll just ignore this one and let the subject get back on track.

No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. What's the point of even saying it if the legislature, the lout "morality policeman" on the sidewalk, can set it aside on their own authority? Why not just skip it and say F you, we can do what we like? The morality police are the law, unto themselves? That is the F ing issue. The dead woman had no rights the morality police were obliged to respect. Whose side are you on?

[L.W. Baxter]

I never “trumpeted” anything, although I did say that in my opinion he was correct. Because I believe in the right to self defend, whether as a person or a country, against attack. You agreed with the right of the Ukraine to defend, but not Rittenhouse. You say Rittenhouse instigated the action yet you say it doesn’t matter what the ukraine did or did not do before the invasion. Before you create the image of hypocrisy in others, look in the mirror.

your equivalency between rittenhouse and ukraine is upside down.

i, too, believe in the right to self defense...but not the right to provoke attack, and then claim self-defense. which is what russia has done, not ukraine. which is what rittenhouse did, not george floyd.

as far as this thread "getting back on track", please summarize the subject for us as you see it. tell us again how insulting it is to "compare" floyd and "the lady".

[Joe (SoCal)]

It doesn't matter what you write, because even plain english in writing will be misconstrued and twisted to meet the needs of liberals. Or in this case, anyone who has disagreed with something you've said in the past.

Don't sweat it... I did for years, and it gained me nothing.

Sad
Where did my B-Dub go ?

[BrianW]

i remember your old tag line, brian. "....small minds talk about people".

well, your focus on george floyd's character is precisely small-minded. talking about a person and ignoring the idea.

George Floyd was not a hero. That is not focus, it is just a fact. It makes the comparison in the OP extremely wrong.

I don't spend my days thinking about George Floyd, but when a error of that magnitude crosses my path, it's hard to ignore.

[skuthorp]

Despite some extreme actions by the state Iranian women have not been cowed yet and may have shifted the posts a tad.
But
They played some footage from the Iranian revolution and a string of subsequent demonstrations etc. Something was missing….. guess…….
Its all about the men retaining all the power, religion is camoflage, how very convenient.
But don't crow, the christian churches would still be the same but for the enlightenment and church excesses.

As to sucess in changing the system, not yet I think unless the regime overplays their hand, and they'd have to overplay it a lot!

[L.W. Baxter]

George Floyd was not a hero. That is not focus, it is just a fact. It makes the comparison in the OP extremely wrong.

I don't spend my days thinking about George Floyd, but when a error of that magnitude crosses my path, it's hard to ignore.

the things we find impossible to ignore reflect who we are.

i find it impossible to ignore that when you show up here anymore it is only to press very specific buttons.

resentment and grievance.

a certain crowd resents that george floyd was made a symbol, a rallying point for protest of a systemic problem.

an icon, even. "hero" is the wrong word, and i don't see where anybody used it except you.

now, what was your grievance again, brian.

[Keith Wilson]

Guys, really? What are we arguing about again?

George Floyd was not a hero. Nobody's claiming he was. He was a poor schlub who was in the wrong place at the wrong time and was murdered by a very bad cop who had likely gotten away with similar things in the past, and will now be in jail for a very long time. The protests following his deaths, turning into riots, were a mixed bag, as were those participating. They were a result of very real injustices, Floyd's death was just the spark, but they did a tremendous amount of harm to many who had little to do with the problem. Those participating had a wide variety of motives; some trying to correct injustice, some angry and just wanting to smash things, some looting for gain, and a surprising number of provocateurs (recall that I work four blocks from the Auto Zone store, since rebuilt, where 'umbrella man' smashed the windows.) Whether much long-term improvement comes of it all remains to be seen.

Mahsa Amini was not a hero either. By all accounts, she also just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, was picked up by the 'morality police' for a trivial offence under current Iranian laws, and killed. Her death was just the spark that ignited protests. The treatment of women under Iranian Islamic fundamentalist rule is obviously a LOT worse than the Minneapolis police department, no question.. The scale and goals of the protests are also much, much larger, and whether long-term improvement comes of it all remains to be seen. I sincerely hope they succeed.

So there are some analogies; the death of a random individual setting off large protests against real injustice. Not everything is analogous, of course, and the scale of both the problem and the response is very different. I'm a little mystified as to why this should be so contentious. I don't think anyone here supports either Derek Chauvin or the Morality Police.

[L.W. Baxter]

Guys, really? What are we arguing about again?...

like every conversation here, we each take turns expressing how we see the world.

the analogy in the thread title seems apt enough, in comparing two people oceans apart, both killed in police custody, both having been arrested for a petty crime. that protests were sparked in the wake of these murders is reason to mention them together, at least.

it is interesting and revealing that someone would feel the need to attack the analogy, by attacking the character of one of the murder victims.

so, i would set out to explore that. why attack the character of a murder victim? why invent an acclamation of "hero" in order to attack that invention? what's the motive?

how do you see the world.

[Osborne Russell]

George Floyd was not a hero. That is not focus, it is just a fact. It makes the comparison in the OP extremely wrong.

I don't spend my days thinking about George Floyd, but when a error of that magnitude crosses my path, it's hard to ignore.

We're not talking about heroes, we're talking about martyrs. The concept has been given a bad name by ignorant bigots, but they're not the boss of us. They don't own the concept. F them.

People that could have been you. There, but for fortune, go you, and I. Martyred for you me us. How else should it be described?

[Keith Wilson]

it is interesting and revealing that someone would feel the need to attack the analogy, by attacking the character of one of the murder victims..

Indeed. George Floyd was certainly no saint; he'd had a pretty bad drug problem, and had been in jail multiple times, but it's still both illegal and wrong for a cop to murder him, as the court made very clear.

If we were to do something analogous for Mahsa Amini, we could point out that she was breaking the law (letting her hair poke out a little), and then start to hint about whether she'd done anything bad in the past, particularly sexual stuff, as salacious stories about pretty young women are always an easy sell. Demeaning the character of the victim is a standard dishonest tactic.

[Osborne Russell]

the things we find impossible to ignore reflect who we are.

now, what was your grievance again, brian.

Yeah.

Jesus said something to effect of, the least of these, my children . . . so you do unto me. He shamed the morality police out of stoning a prostitute, let alone someone who let her hijab slip. If you want to bring in the Jesus angle. Jesus was a prophet for sure in this: pull your head out. Recognized by Islam.

[Keith Wilson]

Jesus shamed the morality police out of stoning a prostitute, let alone someone who let her hijab slip.

Excellent point.

Well, we seem to have killed it.

FWIW, news out of Iran has been dodgy due to internet disruptions, and the invasion of Ukraine takes up a lot of space, but protests seem to be continuing unabated, or even increasing. May they succeed.