How to be a racist

[presonorek]

1. How does one become a racist?

2. What actions must one take to be labeled a racist? (This can be punished by law.)

3. What thoughts must one have to be racist? (Thoughts cannot be verified, this my question stupid. Do not answer this question. It would be dumb for you to do so.)

4. What words must one use to be racist? (Freedom of speech exists. A person cannot be punished for things they say. This question is stupid as well. Do not answer this question or you are a full blown idiot.)

Do not answer question 3 or 4 unless you are stupid.

 

[Canon Shooter]

1. How does one become a racist?

2. What actions must one take to be labeled a racist? (This can be punished by law.)

3. What thoughts must one have to be racist? (Thoughts cannot be verified, this my question stupid. Do not answer this question. It would be dumb for you to do so.)

4. What words must one use to be racist? (Freedom of speech exists. A person cannot be punished for things they say. This question is stupid as well. Do not answer this question or you are a full blown idiot.)

Do not answer question 3 or 4 unless you are stupid.

With regards to #4, aperson can most certainly be punished for things they say...

 

[presonorek]

With regards to #4, aperson can most certainly be punished for things they say...

Not legally but yes. You are right.

 

[presonorek]

With regards to #4, aperson can most certainly be punished for things they say...

Are you referring to government administered punishment?

 

[Magnus]

1. How does one become a racist?

2. What actions must one take to be labeled a racist? (This can be punished by law.)

3. What thoughts must one have to be racist? (Thoughts cannot be verified, this my question stupid. Do not answer this question. It would be dumb for you to do so.)

4. What words must one use to be racist? (Freedom of speech exists. A person cannot be punished for things they say. This question is stupid as well. Do not answer this question or you are a full blown idiot.)

Do not answer question 3 or 4 unless you are stupid.

Join the Republican party. You will satisfy all the conditions.

 

[Canon Shooter]

Are you referring to government administered punishment?

Yes.

 

[presonorek]

Join the Republican party. You will satisfy all the conditions.

Thank you for giving me a good example. Joining the Republican Party is a verifiable action. So if racism is defined as registering to vote as a Republican then this type of action can be codified into law.

Missouri Statute 101-4A.

Any person registering or assisting anyone of registering as a Republican shall be guilty of a Class A felony.

This is a provable event that could be enforced by the courts.

 

[Calypso Jones]

Join the Republican party. You will satisfy all the conditions.

and your explanation for the 'diversity' in the Maga Movement?

 

[Canon Shooter]

Not legally but yes. You are right.

Yes, legally...

 

[presonorek]

Yes.

Then you are incorrect. A person cannot be legally punished for the things that they say. You are right though. A magistrate, judge, grand jury, or jury can all take an illegal action to punish someone for the things they say. 3-10 years later the Supreme Court would throw out the conviction and the victim of unjust conviction would be eligible for financial remedy. Instead of waiting 3-10 years most people just accept the conviction. You are wrong though. A person cannot legally be punished by the government for the things they say. I’m assuming you live in the United States. If not then my words are empty, worthless, and stupid. I do not know the laws in other nations.

 

[presonorek]

Yes, legally...

Lol you are dead wrong.

 

[presonorek]

Yes, legally...

Here is an example of something you may be referencing:

Supreme Court of North Carolina Finds Cyberbullying Law Violates First Amendment

www.thefire.org

North Carolina has an identical law called cyberstalking. The only two difference between the laws is this:

Cyberbullying refers to speaking mean to someone electronically under the age of 18. Cyberbullying has been declared an unconstitutional law that is invalid.

Cyberstalking refers to speaking mean to someone electronically age 18 or older. Cyberstalking has never been challenged in the courts thus it remains valid.

 

[Canon Shooter]

Then you are incorrect. A person cannot be legally punished for the things that they say. You are right though. A magistrate, judge, grand jury, or jury can all take an illegal action to punish someone for the things they say. 3-10 years later the Supreme Court would throw out the conviction and the victim of unjust conviction would be eligible for financial remedy. Instead of waiting 3-10 years most people just accept the conviction. You are wrong though. A person cannot legally be punished by the government for the things they say. I’m assuming you live in the United States. If not then my words are empty, worthless, and stupid. I do not know the laws in other nations.

You need to make up your mind.

Let me help you: I'm right.

Call your local elementary school and make a bomb threat. I promise you that you'll face severe penalties for that. Threaten the life of the President publicly. You think you're walking away unscathed? Kill a homosexual and you'll get charged with murder. Kill a homosexual while screaming "DIE, FAGGOT!" and you'll be charged and convicted of a hate crime, which normally carries stiffer penalties.

Believe otherwise at your own peril...

 

[Canon Shooter]

Here is an example of something you may be referencing:

Supreme Court of North Carolina Finds Cyberbullying Law Violates First Amendment

www.thefire.org

North Carolina has an identical law called cyberstalking. The only two difference between the laws is this:

Cyberbullying refers to speaking mean to someone electronically under the age of 18. Cyberbullying has been declared an unconstitutional law that is invalid.

Cyberstalking refers to speaking mean to someone electronically age 18 or older. Cyberstalking has never been challenged in the courts thus it remains valid.

I'm actually not referring to that at all...

 

[presonorek]

You need to make up your mind.

Let me help you: I'm right.

Call your local elementary school and make a bomb threat. I promise you that you'll face severe penalties for that. Threaten the life of the President publicly. You think you're walking away unscathed? Kill a homosexual and you'll get charged with murder. Kill a homosexual while screaming "DIE, FAGGOT!" and you'll be charged and convicted of a hate crime, which normally carries stiffer penalties.

Believe otherwise at your own peril...

Who do you think commits more crimes on a daily basis?

A.) Criminals
B.) Judges

The correct answer is B. A semi truck can run over a police officer too. So when I say can’t and you say can’t we aren’t making the same reference point.

You are referring to power. I am referring to authority.

 

[presonorek]

I'm actually not referring to that at all...

The government does not have the authority to punish people for the things they say.

The government does have the power to punish people for the things they say.

The word power and authority cannot be used interchangeably. They are very different. Power is not limited by the restraint of law. Authority is limited by the restraint of law.

 

[The Duke]

You need to make up your mind.

Let me help you: I'm right.

Call your local elementary school and make a bomb threat. I promise you that you'll face severe penalties for that. Threaten the life of the President publicly. You think you're walking away unscathed? Kill a homosexual and you'll get charged with murder. Kill a homosexual while screaming "DIE, FAGGOT!" and you'll be charged and convicted of a hate crime, which normally carries stiffer penalties.

Believe otherwise at your own peril...

This is off-topic, but IMO it's pretty damn silly to add additional charges to a murder conviction which should carry a swift and public execution. At that point they're just adding another layer of bureaucracy. Say the guy gets life in prison, what's another trial going to add to that? Double life in prison? Seems like quite the moot point to me.

 

[Canon Shooter]

Who do you think commits more crimes on a daily basis?

A.) Criminals
B.) Judges

The correct answer is B.

Cite your source for that...

 

[presonorek]

Cite your source for that...

Impossible. Judges don’t get convicted. Any sources I could find would disprove my point. Go spend a day in your local courthouse. I bet you’ll change your mind. If that doesn’t work then come spend a day in my local courthouse.

 

[Canon Shooter]

Impossible. Judges don’t get convicted.

I see.

So you belch up some nonsensical bullshit, fail to offer anything to support your nonsensical bullshit, but expect everyone to believe your nonsensical bullshit.

Got it...

Any sources I could find would disprove my point.

Or, and this is far more likely, the reason they would disprove your point is because your point is nonsensical bullshit...

Go spend a day in your local courthouse. I bet you’ll change your mind. If that doesn’t work then come spend a day in my local courthouse.

You're being foolish.

You can't support anything you say, ergo nothing you say should be viewed as valid.

Kudos on making yourself irrelevant...