Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Hate Crimes? Thought Crimes? Crimethink?
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 46 of 131 (763366)
07-23-2015 10:41 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by NoNukes
07-23-2015 9:34 PM


Perfect 10
But more importantly, how is your rating a Bo Derek, perfect 10 Larni?
If this thread were to sidetrack to exploring the reasons Bo Derek is a perfect 10, it would be a definite improvement.
(Photographs will be required for documentation purposes.)

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle
If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1
"Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by NoNukes, posted 07-23-2015 9:34 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


(1)
Message 47 of 131 (763374)
07-24-2015 4:26 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by New Cat's Eye
07-23-2015 11:35 AM


Cat Sci writes:
quote:
That, is a bit of a slippery slope in my opinion.
You act like there's no such thing as a trial where the defense gets to show that the case presented doesn't meet the standard required for the charges filed.
We already have this with other crimes. It's why there's a difference between murder, manslaughter, and negligent homicide as well as varying degrees of each. The prosecution can file whatever charges they think they can establish but the defense gets to respond and point out that the standard requires certain things that the case doesn't provide. For example, first degree murder has a standard of premeditation (among others). The defense can seek to show that it wasn't premeditated and thus isn't first degree murder. And if that was the only charge filed, the defense wins. And on top of that, the prosecution has to be able to justify the charge before trial even begins.
So why is there any trouble with regard to hate crimes? It's not like the prosecution can just attach it and not have any response. They have to prove that it meets the standard for a hate crime.
Note: A crime against a person who happens to be in a class for which hate crimes laws apply is not sufficient. After all, everybody has a race, sex, sexual orientation, etc.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-23-2015 11:35 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


(1)
Message 48 of 131 (763375)
07-24-2015 4:43 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by NoNukes
07-23-2015 9:34 PM


A perfect 10?
I've been a good boy with a good heart.
But in reality: I posted when my boy William was born (he's 12 weeks old, now) and (Just like Christmas during World War One) every one came together to bring him gifts of up votes and good wishes.
I'm not comparing William to Jesus: that's for other people to decide.

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286
Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by NoNukes, posted 07-23-2015 9:34 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by AZPaul3, posted 07-24-2015 7:59 AM Larni has not replied
 Message 53 by NoNukes, posted 07-24-2015 7:21 PM Larni has not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 49 of 131 (763383)
07-24-2015 7:59 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by Larni
07-24-2015 4:43 AM


Flip the yard switch.
In an attempt to further derail a thread that has become mired in absurdities ...
...every one came together to bring him gifts of up votes and good wishes.
And well deserved at that, but Coyote promised you would give us pictures of Bo. So ... ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Larni, posted 07-24-2015 4:43 AM Larni has not replied

  
caffeine
Member (Idle past 1024 days)
Posts: 1800
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008


Message 50 of 131 (763384)
07-24-2015 8:22 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by NoNukes
07-23-2015 5:26 PM


You can have a freedom of speech enshrined in your constitution and yet not have anything like the first amendment.
If you have a guarantee of freedom of speech enshrined in your constutition, you have something exactly like the first amendment, because that's what the first amendment is. Sure, they all may be worded slightly differently, but it's worth noting that the justification offered that British laws against incitement to racial hatred do not contravene the European Convention of Human Rights is exactly that same as that used by the US Supreme Court to uphold the constitutionality of the Espionage and Sedition acts during the first world war.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by NoNukes, posted 07-23-2015 5:26 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by NoNukes, posted 07-24-2015 4:52 PM caffeine has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


(1)
Message 51 of 131 (763400)
07-24-2015 11:57 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Jon
07-23-2015 3:33 PM


Jon writes:
Is 'hate crime' a slippery slope to 'hate speech' to simply 'crimethink'?
Every slope is slippery, even if the slope is zero. The question is whether or not the coefficient of friction makes the situation dangerous.
What makes you think it does in this case?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Jon, posted 07-23-2015 3:33 PM Jon has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 52 of 131 (763422)
07-24-2015 4:52 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by caffeine
07-24-2015 8:22 AM


If you have a guarantee of freedom of speech enshrined in your constutition, you have something exactly like the first amendment, because that's what the first amendment is.
Well no. Even if the wording of the provision were identical, you don't necessarily get all of the jurisprudence and precedent that 'the' first amendment has with respect to free speech. In fact, our first amendment at the time it was enacted was a shell of its current self. You mention the World War I sedition act, but there was previous acts in 1798 that outlawed criticism of the government.
None of those Sedition acts would be found constitutional under the current interpretation of the first amendment. Brandenberg v. Ohio being a case illustrating that principle on subject matter at issue in this thread. I wouldn't want to claim that such Acts could not happen again during war time. But I don't think that's the slippery slope at issue in this thread.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King
If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by caffeine, posted 07-24-2015 8:22 AM caffeine has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 53 of 131 (763446)
07-24-2015 7:21 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Larni
07-24-2015 4:43 AM


I posted when my boy William was born
Yes, I remember now. Congrats again.
I just checked with Ms NN. She says she is not going to bear another child just so I can get a boost to my rating. She suggests that I simply make some sensible, informative, and possibly witty posts. Well that's not going to happen.
And to return to the topic. I hate to dignify this question with a response, but in those witch trials, people were generally alleged to have committed acts of witchcraft and were not simply accused of having thought about casting a spell on someone. I don't see an analogy with the kind of thought crimes under discussion here.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King
If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Larni, posted 07-24-2015 4:43 AM Larni has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Jon, posted 07-24-2015 10:25 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 54 of 131 (763450)
07-24-2015 9:18 PM


OK, someone has to do it

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle
If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1
"Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Coyote, posted 07-24-2015 10:32 PM Coyote has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 55 of 131 (763456)
07-24-2015 10:25 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by NoNukes
07-24-2015 7:21 PM


I hate to dignify this question with a response, but in those witch trials, people were generally alleged to have committed acts of witchcraft and were not simply accused of having thought about casting a spell on someone. I don't see an analogy with the kind of thought crimes under discussion here.
No analogy attempted.
I was pointing out to New Cat's Eye that undetectable things can still be crimes.
Witchcraft was apparently a crime, yet we all know now there's no real way to detect witchcraft because witchcraft doesn't exist.
So the fact that thoughts can't be detected, contrary to what New Cat's Eye thinks, doesn't preclude thoughts from being classified as crimes.

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by NoNukes, posted 07-24-2015 7:21 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-04-2015 4:53 PM Jon has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 56 of 131 (763457)
07-24-2015 10:32 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by Coyote
07-24-2015 9:18 PM


Re: OK, someone has to do it
And there's more where that came from!
Don't make me post again!

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle
If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1
"Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Coyote, posted 07-24-2015 9:18 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Coyote, posted 07-24-2015 11:49 PM Coyote has seen this message but not replied
 Message 58 by Omnivorous, posted 07-25-2015 12:43 AM Coyote has seen this message but not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 57 of 131 (763459)
07-24-2015 11:49 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Coyote
07-24-2015 10:32 PM


Re: OK, someone has to do it
Stop me before I post again!

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle
If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1
"Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Coyote, posted 07-24-2015 10:32 PM Coyote has seen this message but not replied

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3978
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


(1)
Message 58 of 131 (763460)
07-25-2015 12:43 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by Coyote
07-24-2015 10:32 PM


Re: OK, someone has to do it
I suppose you already understand it was not really the face that launched a thousand ships, whatever the press release said.

"If you can keep your head while those around you are losing theirs, you can collect a lot of heads."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Coyote, posted 07-24-2015 10:32 PM Coyote has seen this message but not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 59 of 131 (765701)
08-04-2015 4:53 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by Jon
07-24-2015 10:25 PM


Witchcraft was apparently a crime, yet we all know now there's no real way to detect witchcraft because witchcraft doesn't exist.
So the fact that thoughts can't be detected, contrary to what Cat Sci thinks, doesn't preclude thoughts from being classified as crimes.
Sorry, I thought you were talking about today not 300 years ago.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Jon, posted 07-24-2015 10:25 PM Jon has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 60 of 131 (775373)
01-01-2016 4:32 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Jon
07-22-2015 11:28 PM


Do hate crimes punish thought? Are hate crimes an example of thought crimes?
And if so, are they moral?
Is hate crime a slippery slope to crimethink?
Yes, hate crimes are ultimately additional punishment on top of the act itself.
Is it more or less moral to murder someone in cold blood if the motive is for robbery versus for some social or political motive? The fact of the matter is two people are still brutally slain, but one is trivialized more than the other.
Enhancement laws are unnecessary since courtrooms take many different things in to account during the sentencing phase, such as the brutality of the crime. Obviously someone that tortures their victim prior to death might be tried more severely versus someone who poisoned anonymous victims.
Here, actions are being taken into consideration whereas Hate Crimes look at actions and thoughts. But motive =/= intent, and from judicial point of view, it is important not to confuse the two.

"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Jon, posted 07-22-2015 11:28 PM Jon has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024