Texas Senate Bill - Can’t teach KKK is morally wrong

Post Reply New Topic

Correction, Duke laundered his dirty past when he enters politics on a republican ticket as governor of Louisiana,

Duke was charged in 1972 with soliciting funds for the George Wallace for President campaign and then illegally pocketing the proceeds. He was also charged with breaking a New Orleans ordinance prohibiting filling glass containers with flammable liquid. Both charges eventually were dropped. In 1976, Duke was convicted of inciting a riot and refusing to disperse. The latter charge was overturned by Louisiana State Court, while he received a suspended sentence, a $500 fine and six months of probation on the inciting charge. In 1987, Duke was charged with reckless conduct and blocking a highway during an anti-integration march in Cumming, Ga. He was given a $55 fine and a one-year suspended prison sentence. In 2002, after spending two years abroad avoiding a feared arrest, Duke agreed to return to the United States and plead guilty to felony mail and tax fraud charges. He served 15 months in a federal prison and was fined $10,000.
https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate ... david-duke

This doesn't include his illicit Klan activities prior to running as governor. Since then he's tried to promote himself as an educated erudite voice for the far right, His so-called clean record is false,

That's like saying someone's a non-violent Islamist.

Oh wow, I haven't heard that before. So why did he fire containers with flammable liquid? What was he trying to do?

Why are molotov cocktails and other improved incendiary devices constructed? In order to use them.

When extremists manufacturer weapons it's generally to commit terrorism with said weapons.

The question is: whom was David Duke throwing it at? Because they charged him with the coctail yet they didn't charge him with attacking a given person, which is weird.

What was the overall context of him doing it? I mean he wasn't doing it every day, he did it that particular time. So what happened that prompted it?

No idea, you're the one trying to argue he's a non-violent white supremacist, perhaps you should investigate what he had destructive devices for if they weren't for terrorism. The fact that he wasn't charged with something worse likely indicates a lack of evidence, not that he had only the most noble of intentions for his firebombs.

Why else would a member of a terrorist organization possess those weapons?
I'm willing to bet it's a case of horses and not zebras which is to say, he had them for the obvious reason and we shouldn't pretend otherwise.

Thats the problem with moral relativism. If no one is right, then no one is wrong. We are a society that has abandoned any basis for truth and we are therefore rudderless. This condition will leave only quarreling factions who can never agree. Enjoy!

That's not actually true.
There's no reason they can't condemn terrorist organizations that violated the rights of American citizens.

If somebody burned a cross in your yard, would you bother to defend the perpetrators by intellectualizing the KKK?

That's what the people who are defending the KKK are doing.....

Even Archie Bunker, a racist and xenophobic character, refused to join the KKK.

You do realize you're defending human trash, David Duke, don't you?

White supremacy IS violence. Full stop.

I agree. I also believe thats where the topic of religion comes in. A religion would imply the belief in some sort of absolute in the situation where otherwise there will be a lot of relativism. So in a religious schools it would be appropriate to teach moral absolutes, while in secular schools that won't be. Since we were talking about the secular education, thats why I said what I did.

Here is the food for thought. If KKK being immoral is obvious from all the facts, then what is the point of telling the students something that is obvious? If, on the other hand, its not so obvious, then why not let the students develop their own point of view on the issue? So this argument pretty much covers all bases, UNLESS you are at a religious school of course.

White supremacy is an opinion. Violence is an action. You can't equate an opinion to an action. The opinion can "result" in the action, but it doesn't have to.

If I say he is not guilty of something specific (violence) that doesn't mean that he is a good person overall. Okay what would happen if I say "David Duke didn't cause Chernobyl explosion". Would you also say I am defending human trash? So then, are you implying that David Duke DID cause Chernobyl explosion, just because he is a horrible person so anything horrible has to be his fault by default?

Now, if we go back from biases to facts, then here are two facts that I am looking at:

a) He stated in one of the videos how he never perpetrated a violence yet there were two incidents where the violence was directed at him. Now, if what he said wasn't true, why did he say it? I mean he would just weaken his case since someone would stop him and say "what about this and that other incident when you were violent". So logically it seems like if he was actually violent in the past, his best course of action would be to simply not touch that topic at all, as opposed to claim not to have been violent.

b) He was arrested because of that explosive liquid. So that shows that he DID intend to be violent towards somebody. But I am not sure whom. Is there a more detailed report when they would say who that was?

So those are facts. I used to be familiar only with "a", thats why I said he isn't violent. But now that I was informed about "b", I am not sure any more. Now I am just curious to find out one way or the other cause it looks confusing: a and b seem to contradict each other.

Last edited by QFT on 23 Jul 2021, 6:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Yet the two go together so often that it would otherwise be an incredible coincidence to think they weren't connected.

No, but claiming Duke represents nonviolent racism implies it, as violence and white supremacy go hand-in-hand with violent actions. The way to avoid any further accusations is to not claim Duke is nonviolent.