You have just given definitive proof of your utter stupidity by stating the following:

>but you dont understand law- so
>why am i still explaining
>it?

This from the man who stated:

"If a White man lynched a guy he thought was a jew but it turned out he was mistaken does he get released cuz the guy wasnt a jew? No because he's being judicated on the grounds of motivated criminal activity - whereby motivation is only a matter of determining punitive damages not necessarily guilt."

....not even realizing that there are no "punitive damages" in criminal trials...that's in civil trials.

And, further, from the man who knows I am in law school, who has never been to law school himself, evidences complete ignorance about the law, writes in torturously wordy sentences ("motivated criminal activity") that rarely make a point, and generally fails to read anything the other party says in a debate.

Okay, that said, let me touch the rest of your points and be on my merry way out of this pointless discussion (pointless because what you propose, a name change for whites as a group, won't change the social reality of the world at all).

>you've allowed it so it must
>have fit.
>
>(because in your
>>examples, the judge still would
>>have to acknowledge differences religion
>>or sexuality in order to
>>determine whether discrimination occurred across
>>those lines).
>
>YUCK- the point was that he
>wouldnt have to adopt ether
>philosophy to make so a
>ruling- you left that part
>out eh sparky.

That part doesn't address the question. The judge has to acknowledge difference b/t the parties benefitted and burdened before making a finding that discrimination occurred. I explained this to you already, but you seem to have failed to read it. The judge would have to acknowledge the differences b/t sexual orientation to find discrimination against a gay person occurred...if the judge didn't acknowledge gays as a group, gays would have no protection under anti-discrimination laws. The same holds true for colorblind principle. A judge who does not recognize racial distinctions cannot find racial discrimination.

Now, if you would have said "well, the judge could look at the ethnicity of the parties", that might be compelling, but of course then you have parties of mixed ethnicity (how would a "black" Latino argue that a firm discriminated by only hiring "white" Latinos?). You haven't even attempted to deal with the complexities involved in adopted your "elimination of racial classification" thesis. At this point, I doubt that you can deal with those complexities, esp. since you seem more inclined to say "yuck" than discuss your ideas in any serious fashion.

He wouldnt
>have to be gay, he
>wouldnt have to be christian,
>he wouldnt have to be
>a jew- he would need
>only understand the ideologies and
>judge the acts committed.
>
>see it doesnt work if you
>leave out the conclusion

The ideology of the judge is never supposed to be the issue, because the judge is theoretically impartial (we all know this isn't completely true, but it's what's supposed to happen).

However, much of current discrimination law works on a presumption of racial difference.

You propose to eliminate racial categories (even if it is only the "white" category) without explaining how discrimination law will operate absent the presumption of racial difference (your musings about whether a judge has to be gay to judge gay discrimination completely misses the point and avoids the issue...the analogous situation would be whether the judge believe "gay people" or "straight people" are a group).

>>>a judge can only act
>>>on acts committed and acts
>>>in evidence. The matter of
>>>prejudice may be material to
>>>quantifyin punitive measures for acts
>>
>>No idea what you're talking about.
>
>then you dont understand law and
>probablys houldnt bother discussing it

No, you probably can't write a cogent sentence. The matter of prejudice IS evidence in discrimination cases....it isn't merely used in determining "punitive measures" (again, here you mean to say "punitive DAMAGES"), it is used to determine whether the plaintiff prevails at all. In the absence of establishing the occurrence of discrimination, the plaintiff LOSES...there is no discussion of punitive damages if the plaintiff fails to make the basic elements of his/her case. If you understood law as well as you THINK YOU DO, you would know that.

>>I'm talking about job discrimination.
>
>which is settled in civil litigation-
>law
>
>>If the plaintiff can't establish
>>the act was prejudicial (biased
>>against the plaintiff's group membership),
>>there goes his/her case, to
>>keep it simple.
>
>but he can establish an act
>as prejudicial-

But you made the following fallacious assumption:
"The matter of prejudice may be material to quantifyin punitive measures..." There is no "may" about it...if prejudice isn't established, the plaintiff LOSES THE CASE and cannot receive punitive damages AT ALL. It's not "may be material", it IS material. That's what I meant by "if the plaintiff cannot establish the act was prejudicial...". If you knew the law, I wouldn't have even had to explain that.

> the judge doesnt
>need to adopt either philosophy
>to issue a fair warning.
>If that plaintiff were Black
>you're saying the judge would
>have to consider himself "white"
>to make a propper ruling.

WRONG. You obviously are not reading. THE JUDGE HAS TO ACCEPT RACIAL CLASSIFICATION TO EVEN CONSIDER THE PLAINTIFF "BLACK". All this talk you're spitting about "black" being a term created by 60's nationalists has nothing at all to do with how the vast majority of Americans perceive racial classifications. The average white person considers you black because of your physical appearance, not because a black nationalist said it. The term "black" predates the 60's. "Negro" is Spanish for black and was used for centuries prior to the 60's.

>If that plaintiff were gay
>you're saying that either the
>judge would have to be
>gay or homophobic to rule.
>That doesnt make sense.

You REALLY aren't reading what I'm saying. Quote the language where I said anything CLOSE to that. You can't, because I never said anything close to that. Reading is fundamental.

>>>for example:"black" plaintiff, "white" defendant, where
>>>"black" plaintiff claims "white" defendant
>>>
>>>discriminated against him. Ok now lets
>>>establish the facts of the
>>>case, was there violence involved,
>>
>>wtf? it's a discrimination case. "black
>>plaintiff" claims he was not
>>promoted due to blackness. sues
>>for difference in back pay
>>he would have received had
>>he been promoted (which he
>>would have absent his skin
>>color, or so he seeks
>>to show).
>
>Yuck- so i can make my
>own hypothetical unless it doesnt
>comply with the one you
>want me to set-up.

Hey, genius, not many discrimination cases involve violence. You're getting discrimination law mixed up with hate crime laws. Yeah, you're right, I'm not going to let you mix up apples and oranges. You already had your chance to make up a hypothetical and failed horrible, coming up with some pretty poor analogies.

>this is a horrible discussion
>
>ive already demonstrated how a judge
>would see this case through.
>He'd take account of the
>evidence of disparity

What evidence of disparity? You say incredibly vague things like this throughout all your posts. If the judge can't find the defendant or its employees to be "white", how can he measure racial disparity where a workplace is all "white"? He can't. That's the issue. He has to determine that the employer has a bias (implicitly, this means he hires one group over another) to find discrimination.

> and if
>that is the case who
>would rule with consideration of
>ideology which add to punitive
>measure (calculation, pre meditation, conpiracy
>etc)

Premeditation is a state of mind, not a "punitive measure". Conspiracy is an act, not a "punitive measure". So, what exactly are you saying? Nothing really...and that's the nature of this whole "discussion". What "ideology" are you talking about? you live on a theoretical cloud and can't seem to come down to the realm of concrete application.

>>>These questions dont even need to
>>>involve race as discrimination cases
>>>are judged not on the
>>>merit of ideologies but rather
>>>on the inproprieties committed by
>>>the accused party.
>
>>You're babbling here. Discrimination cases ARE
>>judged on something analogous to
>>"ideology", in religious cases for
>>example. The judge must recognize
>>religious difference between the parties
>>to proceed (for if the
>>judge made a factual finding
>>that there was no distinction
>>b/t the religion of the
>>party claiming harm and the
>>party granted the benefit --
>>here, a promotion -- then
>>discrimination could not be shown
>>on that basis).
>
>You're a hack-neyed attorney spirit quit
>guessing at what should happen
>in court and read a
>bookj on judicial procedure. A
>judge cant make any ruling
>on his presumption of the
>merit of a belief system.

You're a horrible reader, Koala, quit guessing what I'm saying and read my actual words. And read a book on discrimination law. I'm not talking about the "merit" of a belief system, I'm talking about the judge making a baseline finding that a BELIEF SYSTEM EXISTS. To use your race analogy, instead of saying "whites" are not a group, say "Christians" are not recognized as a religious group. A plaintiff alleges religious bias in hiring against a department store that only hires "Christians". The judge, looking at the statistical evidence, could not find that "Christians" are hired to the detriment of other religious groups if the judge did not recognize Christians themselves as a religious group. The plaintiff couldn't argue "he hired him because they shared a religion" if the judge doesn't recognize that religion exists.

Take this back to the race issue. If a workplace only hired "whites" but "whites" were not recognized as a group, how could you show racial bias? You couldn't, because "whites" wouldn't be recognized as a race.

Also, if you count your fingers, you'll figure out that I've been in law school for two years now, so I've read quite a few books on jurisprudence.

>Evidence of ideology however can go
>to characterize acts of calculation
>which go to punitive considerations.
>
>If a mormon lynched a follower
>of wicca he would charged
>with murder and his punitive
>damages

THERE ARE NO PUNITIVE DAMAGES IN CRIMINAL TRIALS. If you're going to speak about the law, at least get your terms right. Finally, we aren't talking about murder, we're talking about job discrimination. If you don't understand the difference between discrimination law and hate crimes legislation, I'd suggest YOU get some books on the law yourself.

> would comply with those
>of hate crimes as for
>the premeditation; the judge would
>neither need to be wiccan
>or mormon to make a
>ruling.

The judge would, however, have to recognize the distinction between wiccans and mormons, as hate crime law is not applicable to intra-group crimes.

>>Ex: "black" plaintiff claims he wasn't
>>hired due to blackness, yet
>>"white" defendant hired another "black
>>person" to fill the position.
>>"black" plaintiff" claim likely fails.
>>
>>
>>in your race-ideology world, what occurs
>>in the following scenario, from
>>three parties, all born in
>>Brooklyn: Brooklyn employee ("white") hires
>>Brooklyn construction worker ("white") over
>>another Brooklyn construction worker ("black").
>>All of the construction workers
>>on site are from Brooklyn
>>(and "white") but there are
>>no "blacks" from Brooklyn hired
>>to the site, ever. How
>>does your philosophy deal with
>>that?
>
>My philosophy establishes that all the
>people you just mentioned are
>being unfairly categorized by racial
>philosophies that hold no scientific
>or biological wieght and go
>to establish nothing but a
>demeaning social order. As such
>seeing as this compy has
>acted in an infringing manner
>on the basis of the
>ideology against another citizen

An infringing manner? How do you PROVE that? That's the question. How do you prove infringement without saying "this person is white and only hires whites".

> then
>aa a civil crime is
>demonstrated and proven so too
>will it be judicated.
>
>>"African" can't be the culture ascribed
>>to "black" people, because (1)
>>all African born people are
>>not "black" and (2) all
>>'black' people were not born
>>in Africa. Further, most black
>>people in America cannot trace
>>their lineage back to specific
>>ethnic groups (Ethiopia, Egyptian, etc.).
>>Confusing the issue even further,
>>many anthropologists agree that all
>>people originate from Africa.
>
>I dont see what this has
>to do with anything.

What it means is, using "black" as a group identifier is just as arbitrary as "white" as a group identifier. It's always amazing how you can't see how things detrimental to your point "ha(ve) to do with anything".

>>>In an extreme example- if a
>>>White man lynched a man
>>>cuz he was Black does
>>>the judge need to believe
>>>in the racial ideology of
>>>either party to convict the
>>>white man of murder- nope.
>>
>>We're talkign about job discrimination, not
>>lenching. So, your "extreme example"
>>is actually a worthless example.
>
>YUCKITY YUCK YUCK
>
>remember when you said this...
>
>"Create the hypothetical, from top to
>bottom. Create the hypothetical case
>of racial discrimination and how
>the judge handles the case
>without acknowledging the existence of
>race."

LENCHING IS DISTINCT FROM RACIAL DISCRIMINATION. Lenching is a criminal offense, job discrimination (how I meant "racial discrimination" in the context of this entire discussion) is a civil offense.

Spread love,

Spirit
http://www.theamphibians.com

9 out of 10 people with two arms find something interesting about http://www.theamphibians.com
This summer: new audio, same odd sense of humor. Don't get "left" out, mossie your two-armed self on over and check it out.