does anyone else see something wrong with this ????

fuzzywuzzy · Post by **fuzzywuzzy** » Wed Jul 27, 2011 3:41 pm

Georgia Mother Who Lost Son to Hit-and-Run Avoids Jail | Care2 Causes

May I ask why this mother was even arrested?

"Jerry, who has a history of hit-and-runs, later admitted through his lawyer that he had consumed “a little” alcohol earlier in the day, was on pain medication and is partially blind in one eye. Jerry received a 6 month jail sentence and 5 years probation for the hit-and-run charge he was convicted of."

"Raquel Nelson was tried and convicted of homicide by vehicle in the death of her son and faced up to 3 years in prison, just for trying to cross the street and get her children home. An MSNBC article describes Raquel’s “jury of peers” by explaining “During jury questioning for Nelson’s trial, when members of the jury that would eventually convict her were asked if any of them relied on public transportation, no one raised their hand. A handful admitted to occasionally taking the bus to go to Atlanta Braves games.”

So she's guilty of murder ...just for trying to cross the road?

Odie · Post by **Odie** » Wed Jul 27, 2011 5:17 pm

That is insane and I just cannot understand why a jury would would think it was her fault.

as the link said, don't punish a pedestrian for a drivers mistake.

Post by **spot** » Wed Jul 27, 2011 6:24 pm

fuzzywuzzy;1363416 wrote: May I ask why this mother was even arrested?You have to be kidding. You have a person immediately responsible for three children who's "laden with groceries" and gets them to the central divide across 4 lanes, and then unsurprisingly fails to prevent a 4-year-old from stepping in front of a car? No 4-year-old in the world should be placed in that position any more than they should tightrope-walk without a safety net. How could she possibly not be arrested. And since she's blatantly responsible for the child's preventable death of course she's going to be prosecuted and sentenced. How careless does a person have to get before they're held responsible, in your world?

She's given 40 hours of community service and 2 years of probation. It could scarcely get more lenient.

Forget your feminist agenda for a moment. Pretend it was their father instead and see if you feel any angrier at the waste.

fuzzywuzzy · Post by **fuzzywuzzy** » Wed Jul 27, 2011 7:51 pm

I beg your pardon??? what the hell? A jurisdiction fails to protect their pedestrians near a bus stop and it's a feminism issue? So everyone who trys to cross a road and gets hit is a criminal or if their friend or loved one gets hit they are criminals?? ??? The child is hit by a drunk driver who fails to stop and you blame the mother who has probably been crossing that road for years because she doesn't have a drivers lisence and just happens to live there. Why is it this womans fault for one a drink driver and the lack of infrastructure in her neighbourhood?

Post by **LarsMac** » Wed Jul 27, 2011 7:53 pm

I have no idea where you get the "feminist agenda" bit here, Spot.

I am trying to wrap my head around this, as well.

here is another perspective:

African American Pundit: Video: Raquel Nelson, Jay Walking and The Georgia Color Aroused Injustice System

And for another perspective, I can say that I am very familiar with that neighborhood. Thee are no actual safe crosswalks there. the nearest "official" crosswalk is three blocks away, meaning nearly .7 mile walk just to get across the street.

Yes, she probably should have done the "legal" thing, and yes, she made a mistake, but it is ludicrous to try her for murder, and let a drunk driver walk with such a meager sentence.

I doubt you have any idea what people in this woman's neighborhood have to deal with every day. And obviously you're not alone. none of the jury seem to, either.

If anyone is responsible for the death of her son, it would be the drunk white boy who should have been banned from driving a long time ago, according to his record.

Post by **spot** » Wed Jul 27, 2011 8:08 pm

We would appear to have an entirely different notion of personal responsibility.

I'll say it again, no 4-year-old in the world should be placed in that position any more than they should tightrope-walk without a safety net.

The person in charge of the 4-year-old took three children and her shopping to the central divide of the road while incapable of preventing him from stepping off into the path of a car. That's where the lack of responsibility comes in. The issue of drunk driving has nothing to do with it. Whether he actually stepped into the path of a car has nothing to do with it either. What makes it irresponsible is that she did it at all, when (as events proved) she had no means of controlling the child's behavior. Or is anyone here pretending the child had the ability to cross safely, or a capacity to exercise road sense?

The feminism aspect of the OP comes from the emphasis on "mother" in "why this mother was even arrested". I'll repeat the other point: pretend it was their father instead and see if you feel any angrier at the waste.

fuzzywuzzy · Post by **fuzzywuzzy** » Wed Jul 27, 2011 8:41 pm

because she's the mother and not the "other person", "person of interest" , she is his mother .....still is death doesn't change that.

yes yes spot ...post after post ...thread after thread everyone hears your mundane off the topic comments that have to be repeated over and over again .......you sit there like a 4 year old yourself bleating "ANSWER THE QUESTION!! EVERYONE IS AN IDIOT IF THEY DONT ANSWER MY OFF TOPIC MUNDANE QUESTION THAT I PULLED OUT OF MY ARSE BECAUSE I CANT HANDLE THE TOPIC!!!"

sigh............... I would be just as horrified considering the content of the original story ....whether it's the mother or the father it's much of muchness. And to think a woman has committed a crime simply because she went about her daily business doing what she has to do to raise and feed (the groceries in point here) her children and get them home in the only way she can is not a crime.

Now ****ing apologise for making this into a benign feminist topic. It's insulting and and misleading the topic and you know it .

Post by **spot** » Wed Jul 27, 2011 8:57 pm

No, fuzz. I'm not interested in fighting. If you can't address the topic of personal responsibility in an adult way then pick on someone else.

Her decision to cross that road in that way cost her the life of a son. It was a lousy decision. It endangered the child. Are you pretending it didn't? Sometimes endangered children survive, sometimes they don't. Placing them at risk in the first place is obviously a criminal act and obviously ought to be.

Law enforcement tends to prosecute only when they can demonstrate that the risk was incurred. Having a corpse on the street is fairly good proof. In a sane society any 4-year-old on a central reservation who can't reliably be prevented from stepping into the road should be taken into care for its own safety.

The parent had no choice but to be there with the children and the shopping? Fair enough. What does it cost to buy reins?

fuzzywuzzy · Post by **fuzzywuzzy** » Wed Jul 27, 2011 9:14 pm

Not even going to read your post ..." No, fuzz. I'm not interested in fighting. If you can't address the topic of personal responsibility in an adult way then pick on someone else." and while you're at it take your own advice!!!!

Well ...."yes fuzz I am interested in being a git!!!...now for good measure becasue I've been told to shove it up my arse I must bring in the words 'fight' and 'feminism' and 'pick' cause I'm a woosy kind of a man who can't see through my own mirror image of my own ego . "

And this is exactly why people leave this forum that's why they have congregated on other sites ..Have the audacity of beginning a thread and be immediately attacked by a man who has no idea how to address nor understand anyone elses views .

YOu make it very unpleasant to be on this forum ....there .........I said what so many wouldn't or couldn't say before me . Now you know what people are saying about you on other sites and why they leave this forum. And go ahead and ban me because it would be worth being banned on others feelings youv'e hurt or satired or belittled .

and what's really sad is that you won't take any of what I've said on board ..instead you'll see it as some kind of win becasue you are incapable of seeing anything beyond your own solitary self

Post by **spot** » Wed Jul 27, 2011 9:26 pm

I had a single sentence relating to feminism - if anyone's jumping onto a small matter and inflating it it's you, not me. I placed this thread among a succession of your posts which are feminist-biased because, again, it's pretending there's a downtrodden woman rail-roaded into a courtroom for something she didn't do. It fits perfectly with, for example, "abortion rights in the hands of MEN" and "miscarriage punishable by death???????". Or do you claim you have no feminist agenda in your threads?

Had the family in the OP been on the sidewalk and a drunk driver mounted it and killed one then obviously it's a drunk-driver-outrage story with an innocent parent. That's not what happened.

fuzzywuzzy · Post by **fuzzywuzzy** » Wed Jul 27, 2011 9:37 pm

Every thread I have begun is coming out in law, people are pushing those agendas in America. and you think it's a feminist objective rather than just wrong? hhhmmm me thinks I've come across a mysoginist . how is a misscarriage of justice or a law that takes away the rights of any individual feminist? You don't like women do you? because it was you who jumped on that bandwagon and saw it for how you wanted to see it

YOU inflated and went over the top by calling it a feminist topic. You're an idiot ..what can I say?

Post by **spot** » Wed Jul 27, 2011 9:41 pm

Bravo. Now would you like to address the topic? In what way was 40 hours of community service and 2 years of probation a miscarriage of justice?

fuzzywuzzy · Post by **fuzzywuzzy** » Wed Jul 27, 2011 9:41 pm

SSSooooooooo...if I post anything about women or womens rights or the depletion of those rights ..that means I'm pushing a feminist agenda ?....tell me something can I post anything of the sex trade? or starvation of women and children in somalia? or the abortion rights of women in the ukraine?

I just feel I have to check with you first because I'd hate to be painted with the feminist brush. god forbid I find out some kind of injustice int he world and mention it on this forum ....god forbid I upset you spot .

Post by **spot** » Wed Jul 27, 2011 9:43 pm

On a point of information, I've considered myself a feminist for some decades and still do.

fuzzywuzzy · Post by **fuzzywuzzy** » Wed Jul 27, 2011 9:44 pm

spot;1363446 wrote: Bravo. Now would you like to address the topic? In what way was 40 hours of community service and 2 years of probation a miscarriage of justice?

I was the one who began the topic ******** !!! maybe you'd like not to post in this thread anymore .

Post by **spot** » Wed Jul 27, 2011 9:46 pm

fuzzywuzzy;1363449 wrote: I was the one who began the topic ******** !!! maybe you'd like not to post in this thread anymore .

I think you're just stuck for a reasonable response, myself.

fuzzywuzzy · Post by **fuzzywuzzy** » Wed Jul 27, 2011 9:47 pm

spot;1363448 wrote: On a point of information, I've considered myself a feminist for some decades and still do.

Yes as I have when discussing blacks ..I'm an honoury black because I understand so much they have to go through and what they have to put up with . Oh yes it's so enlightening to be a feminist and a black in spirit......Oh if only we both could have been born a woman and a black ...such a romantic notion isn't it......excuse me i need to throw up .

fuzzywuzzy · Post by **fuzzywuzzy** » Wed Jul 27, 2011 9:49 pm

spot;1363450 wrote: I think you're just stuck for a reasonable response, myself.

I've stated my thoughts ....done ............waiting for others now......and you in responce decided I had a feminist agenda . hhhmmmm off topic?

Post by **spot** » Wed Jul 27, 2011 9:51 pm

fuzzywuzzy;1363442 wrote: And this is exactly why people leave this forum that's why they have congregated on other sites ..Have the audacity of beginning a thread and be immediately attacked by a man who has no idea how to address nor understand anyone elses views .If a post is bunkum, fuzzy, then I challenge the bunk. People tend to get annoyed at being challenged rather than respond to the points made. It's an indication that they have no rational position to defend.

fuzzywuzzy · Post by **fuzzywuzzy** » Wed Jul 27, 2011 9:55 pm

that's sweet coming from a man who has no rational position to defend in general.

Post by **spot** » Wed Jul 27, 2011 9:58 pm

fuzzywuzzy;1363454 wrote: that's sweet coming from a man who has no rational position to defend in general.

You asked me "Why is it this womans fault" and I've told you. Because she put the child in harm's way. Because she had no need to, reins being cheap. It's scarcely rocket science.

fuzzywuzzy · Post by **fuzzywuzzy** » Wed Jul 27, 2011 9:59 pm

There are too many around the world who don't think the OP is bunkum ..so it's you against the rest of the world spot ....but I'm sure your perspective is right and everyone else is wrong .

So in your world any woman (or father) who has a child run over should be arrested under a crimes act because they have displayed ...???? what exactly????

Post by **spot** » Wed Jul 27, 2011 10:22 pm

fuzzywuzzy;1363456 wrote: There are too many around the world who don't think the OP is bunkum ..so it's you against the rest of the world spot ....but I'm sure your perspective is right and everyone else is wrong .

So in your world any woman (or father) who has a child run over should be arrested under a crimes act because they have displayed ...???? what exactly????

You keep putting words into my mouth that I've neither said nor implied. You did it earlier too:So everyone who trys to cross a road and gets hit is a criminal or if their friend or loved one gets hit they are criminals?? ???No, some children get run over by accident without a reckless disregard for their safety on the part of the adult in charge of them and the adult in charge of them isn't criminally responsible. Few people who try to cross a road and get hit are criminal. Few people whose friend or loved one gets hit are criminals.

What you're avoiding is whether the adult in charge has recklessly gambled the child's life and lost. Just think for a moment about putting a 4-year-old on a central divide and not holding its hand to keep it safe - does that not make you shudder? And if you know in advance you'll not have a hand free and you'll have to be there, buying reins is a simple and effective solution.

Society insists that someone has to be responsible for a 4-year-old's safety. It only prosecutes those who are responsible for the child's safety and are recklessly negligent and even then a prosecution almost always, as this time, only follows a catastrophic result, so as to demonstrate the negligence.

Do you think society shouldn't prosecute after a catastrophic result of reckless neglect? That might get us half-way to agreement. All that would then be left is whether this mother in these circumstances, taking a 4-year-old onto a central divide with two other children and groceries, was reckless in not being equipped to restrain the child from stepping out into the road. I can't see how any reasonable person could say she wasn't.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Thu Jul 28, 2011 2:53 am

spot;1363422 wrote: You have to be kidding. You have a person immediately responsible for three children who's "laden with groceries" and gets them to the central divide across 4 lanes, and then unsurprisingly fails to prevent a 4-year-old from stepping in front of a car? No 4-year-old in the world should be placed in that position any more than they should tightrope-walk without a safety net. How could she possibly not be arrested. And since she's blatantly responsible for the child's preventable death of course she's going to be prosecuted and sentenced. How careless does a person have to get before they're held responsible, in your world?

She's given 40 hours of community service and 2 years of probation. It could scarcely get more lenient.

Forget your feminist agenda for a moment. Pretend it was their father instead and see if you feel any angrier at the waste.

Did you actually read the full story before posting spot? The drunk driver with several convictions for hit and run accidents gets a lesser charge and sentence than the mother whose child he killed. Why was he not charged with causing death by dangerous driving or whatever the equivalent is at the very least? Any civilised person with any kind of empathy would think she had been punished enough. What possible justice is it to jail someone and take the rest of her children in to care for a few seconds inattention? If the prosecutor was so worried about the safety of children why did he not put away the drunkard that mowed down a four year old and just kept going for fear of losing his licence? Why does he get leniency? Was his a jury trial - perhaps it wasn't if it was a minor charge. At the very least he should have noticed the crowd of people waiting to cross, but then if you are drunk and mixing pain medication with it and partially blind in one eye maybe the prosecutor thought he was a decent fellow who just made a simple mistake.

No, some children get run over by accident without a reckless disregard for their safety on the part of the adult in charge of them and the adult in charge of them isn't criminally responsible. Few people who try to cross a road and get hit are criminal. Few people whose friend or loved one gets hit are criminals.

What you're avoiding is whether the adult in charge has recklessly gambled the child's life and lost. Just think for a moment about putting a 4-year-old on a central divide and not holding its hand to keep it safe - does that not make you shudder? And if you know in advance you'll not have a hand free and you'll have to be there, buying reins is a simple and effective solution.

Have you never had one of your kids pull away from you and run in to danger? If they go too near a river and you don't grab them in time is it your fault they drown and you should go to jail for carelessness or would the guilt and loss not be punishment enough? I've had kids run out from behind parked cars stopped buses in front of me but not being drunk at the time or speeding and having both eyes working fine I've never actually hit them, had a couple of scares though. Their parents weren't careless or uncaring kids just do stupid things sometimes. Even if I had been so unfortunate as to hit them I would not just drive away. Leaving the scene of an accident is a criminal offence in the UK it appears this guy didn't even get banned.

I'm afraid I agree with everybody else on this one spot you're bang out of order imo as well. Hindsight is wonderful and no doubt she is always going to relive what she could have done to prevent it, but if there hadn't been a drunk one eyed idiot there as well it would probably have been OK, so how come he gets a lesser charge and sentence than she did? That's real injustice if you can't see that you're in a bad way.

Post by **spot** » Thu Jul 28, 2011 5:09 am

As I think I commented earlier, neither the matter of the drunk driver nor his subsequent behavior has a bearing on the parental recklessness and yes of course I read the article. I reckon the recklessness itself is the crime under discussion, not the fact that the child actually stepped out into the road or that it died. I also note that the parent wasn't jailed.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Thu Jul 28, 2011 5:27 am

spot;1363476 wrote: As I think I commented earlier, neither the matter of the drunk driver nor his subsequent behavior has a bearing on the parental recklessness and yes of course I read the article. I reckon the recklessness itself is the crime under discussion, not the fact that the child actually stepped out into the road or that it died. I also note that the parent wasn't jailed.

So you don't see anything wrong with the mother being charged with murder while the actual killer faces a lesser charge?

How is justice served by imprisoning the mother (which presumably is what the prosecutor intended otherwise why would he prosecute) and taking her away from her other children and have them taken in to care, as well as leaving it almost impossible for her to support them when she gets out?

It's double standards, the drunken killer gets away with it while the mother makes one mistake and gets penalised for the rest of her life as do her remaining children.

Post by **spot** » Thu Jul 28, 2011 5:40 am

gmc;1363477 wrote: So you don't see anything wrong with the mother being charged with murder while the actual killer faces a lesser charge?

I have no idea of the implications the word "murder" carries in the State of Georgia, it hasn't crossed my mind to wonder whether the charge was lesser or not. There are two people guilty of different offences, what neither can do is apportion blame for that offence with the other. One is answering a string of driving offences, the other's answering for recklessly endangering someone's life.

theia · Post by **theia** » Thu Jul 28, 2011 5:56 am

In my opinion, and having been a parent of young children, I know there are moments when we take our eyes off our children and, for the most part, there are no tragic consequences. I think parents would have to be superhuman and not a little neurotic to deny that these moments have never happened to them.

That said, I can't actually argue against the views you expressed. But don't you think to yourself, "there but for the grace of God go I" That mother has to live with the loss of her child forever and surely didn't need to be punished further?

Post by **spot** » Thu Jul 28, 2011 6:04 am

You feel the court punished her, theia? 40 hours of community service and 2 years of probation strikes me as a court extending sympathy in every way possible.

I also note that the article can, just possibly, be read as though the child was being held and broke loose, in which case I'd not call it reckless at all but the sort of accident that is reasonably unavoidable. I don't think that's what it says, though. The only reason I think it was reckless behavior is on the assumption that the child wasn't being physically held onto.

Post by **LarsMac** » Thu Jul 28, 2011 7:41 am

spot;1363486 wrote: You feel the court punished her, theia? 40 hours of community service and 2 years of probation strikes me as a court extending sympathy in every way possible.

I also note that the article can, just possibly, be read as though the child was being held and broke loose, in which case I'd not call it reckless at all but the sort of accident that is reasonably unavoidable. I don't think that's what it says, though. The only reason I think it was reckless behavior is on the assumption that the child wasn't being physically held onto.

The punishment for this mother was watching her child die.

The whole trial was just salt in the wounds.

And the child was being held. Apparently, not well enough, but take into consideration the mother had probably had a full day at work, before going off to the market, and was tired, and also holding whatever groceries she had purchased.

Perhaps she should have had the children on a leash?

Post by **spot** » Thu Jul 28, 2011 8:03 am

LarsMac;1363489 wrote: And the child was being held.What do you base that on? Maybe I missed it. If it's true then I'm entirely wrong in what I've written here.

LarsMac;1363489 wrote: Perhaps she should have had the children on a leash?It depends on their age, surely. The 4-year-old should have been on reins if the mother had three children with her, groceries, and knew she might be walking them on or near roads. If the others were significantly older then they could reasonably have road sense attributed to them.

Post by **LarsMac** » Thu Jul 28, 2011 8:30 am

spot;1363490 wrote: What do you base that on? Maybe I missed it. If it's true then I'm entirely wrong in what I've written here.

It depends on their age, surely. The 4-year-old should have been on reins if the mother had three children with her, groceries, and knew she might be walking them on or near roads. If the others were significantly older then they could reasonably have road sense attributed to them.

From the second article:

Several people then crossed the street before Nelson thought it was safe. She waited with her kids. But when others started to move towards the road, Nelson's son must taken it as a cue it was time to go. She felt his grip on her hand loosen and he darted out into the road. She followed. Guy's car struck Nelson, her son and her daughter, and the boy died.

It is not as black and white as you may think.

One problem in society these days is that the thinking is when someone dies, someone must be punished.

I would rather there be an inquiry, and find all the contributing factors, and make changes to eliminate as many as possible.

1. a crosswalk should be near a large apartment complex. Or perhaps the bus stop should be where the crosswalk already exists.

2. there should be better lighting at this intersection, making people more visible.

3. the gentleman who was driving intoxicated, has shown that he lacks the responsibility to operate a motor vehicle. Next time he is caught doing so, he should be taken out and shot.

4. The mother should buy one of those folding roller carts so she has a hand free to manage her children.

Post by **spot** » Thu Jul 28, 2011 8:41 am

My apologies to all concerned, I hadn't seen "She felt his grip on her hand loosen and he darted out into the road" anywhere and if the article is stating it as a fact then it makes her actions entirely reasonable from start to finish.

I have no idea why she was taken to court at all if that information was accepted by the prosecutors as fact. I have no idea why a jury would convict if they accepted it as fact either. Given that it's been printed as a fact in the article then I can do nothing here but believe it to be true.

Post by **LarsMac** » Thu Jul 28, 2011 9:02 am

Devil's in the details.

I grew up in the same area where this happened, and can attest to the lack of adequate measures for pedestrian safety in most of the Southern suburban regions.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Thu Jul 28, 2011 1:07 pm

Is crossing a road not using a crossing an offence in the states?

Post by **LarsMac** » Thu Jul 28, 2011 1:20 pm

gmc;1363516 wrote: Is crossing a road not using a crossing an offence in the states?

Not everywhere.

And even where it is, enforcement is difficult.

californiapeach · Post by **californiapeach** » Tue Aug 09, 2011 6:19 pm

fuzzywuzzy;1363451 wrote: Yes as I have when discussing blacks ..I'm an honoury black because I understand so much they have to go through and what they have to put up with . Oh yes it's so enlightening to be a feminist and a black in spirit......Oh if only we both could have been born a woman and a black ...such a romantic notion isn't it......excuse me i need to throw up .

Are you f*&^% serious???

This is so far beyond offensive it is ridiculous. "Blacks"??? You need to take a good hard look at yourself.

Post by **LarsMac** » Tue Aug 09, 2011 7:06 pm

californiapeach;1364587 wrote: Are you f*&^% serious???

This is so far beyond offensive it is ridiculous. "Blacks"??? You need to take a good hard look at yourself.

If you read that out of context, I can see why your overreacting. But even so, what, exactly is it you find so offensive?

You're not a "Black", I bet.

Post by **spot** » Thu Oct 20, 2011 7:50 am

A retrial's starting next week, if anyone wants to follow it.

https://www.ajc.com/news/cobb/jaywalkin ... 05934.html

fuzzywuzzy · Post by **fuzzywuzzy** » Wed Oct 26, 2011 7:52 pm

californiapeach;1364587 wrote: Are you f*&^% serious???

This is so far beyond offensive it is ridiculous. "Blacks"??? You need to take a good hard look at yourself.

And you need to crawl back into your hole ******** ......it's called sarcasm .....dddaaahhhhh!!!!!! Well at least I'm doing better than my ex he used to call them all sorts of things. But that's a copper for ya. lol lol lol

was this person really from Caliifornia?

fuzzywuzzy · Post by **fuzzywuzzy** » Wed Oct 26, 2011 7:53 pm

spot;1373087 wrote: A retrial's starting next week, if anyone wants to follow it.

https://www.ajc.com/news/cobb/jaywalkin ... 05934.html

Oh and thank you for that .

Post by **spot** » Thu Oct 27, 2011 1:33 am

On a point of information this is a Worldwide board and uses International English norms of speech. It may be that in (and I speak here from a position of ignorance) Australia, for example, no ethnic minority can be described as "Blacks" without giving offence, but that's not necessarily a problem from an International perspective. Though, of course, it might be.

I note that Paki, to take another example, is unexceptionable when used in the USA but not, even slightly, in England. Polack and Yid are completely off the scale of provocative wording.

Those who'd quite like to remain decent will avoid offending others. Those who don't give a damn will offend. The site isn't going to police vocabulary though it may well apply sanctions to hate speech in line with the Terms of Service.

Thank you for your attention, this has been a public service announcement on behalf of common sense.

Snooz · Post by **Snooz** » Thu Oct 27, 2011 1:20 pm

We don't call them Pakis here, they're all ragheads.

Post by **spot** » Thu Oct 27, 2011 1:48 pm

SnoozeAgain;1373618 wrote: We don't call them Pakis here, they're all ragheads.

Only if one applies a few thousand miles of error but I can see that happening. The desert tribes of Araby such as the Saudis might. There are Sikhs in India who have a thing about hair covering too. Pakistan is a long way from any Arab region of the world.

Snooz · Post by **Snooz** » Thu Oct 27, 2011 2:07 pm

spot;1373620 wrote: Only if one applies a few thousand miles of error but I can see that happening. The desert tribes of Araby such as the Saudis might. There are Sikhs in India who have a thing about hair covering too. Pakistan is a long way from any Arab region of the world.

The Turbans (Pugrees) of Pakistan : ALL THINGS PAKISTAN

Post by **spot** » Thu Oct 27, 2011 3:43 pm

The application of derogatory ethnic insults isn't my strong point. If raghead is distinct from towelhead then you may well be better informed than I am, the latter I've seen used only in reference to Arabs and raghead I assumed to be a synonym. I doubt I'll start using either conversationally.

Snooz · Post by **Snooz** » Thu Oct 27, 2011 4:25 pm

I don't use racial slurs either, I just posted that to give you the opportunity to express moral outrage while clutching your pearls. Well done.

YZGI · Post by **YZGI** » Fri Oct 28, 2011 11:15 am

spot;1373635 wrote: The application of derogatory ethnic insults isn't my strong point. If raghead is distinct from towelhead then you may well be better informed than I am, the latter I've seen used only in reference to Arabs and raghead I assumed to be a synonym. I doubt I'll start using either conversationally.

SnoozeAgain;1373638 wrote: I don't use racial slurs either, I just posted that to give you the opportunity to express moral outrage while clutching your pearls. Well done.

Now that right there is, shall we say, Amusing..

fuzzywuzzy · Post by **fuzzywuzzy** » Mon Oct 31, 2011 10:00 am

spot;1373572 wrote: On a point of information this is a Worldwide board and uses International English norms of speech. It may be that in (and I speak here from a position of ignorance) Australia, for example, no ethnic minority can be described as "Blacks" without giving offence, but that's not necessarily a problem from an International perspective. Though, of course, it might be.

Ummm Aboes call themselves blacks and us whiteys. It's never been offensive . It's all over our lititure/song and speech and their's .

Post by **spot** » Mon Oct 31, 2011 11:21 am

fuzzywuzzy;1373962 wrote: Ummm Aboes call themselves blacks and us whiteys. It's never been offensive . It's all over our lititure/song and speech and their's .

It's often the case that members of a group can can use a term about themselves that, if used by members of another group about them, would start a riot. Black Americans calling each other "nigger" springs to mind. I'd raise eyebrows if I joined a conversation in a bar in Harlem and did the same. I did indicate that I was ignorant of the Australian position when I gave the example.