Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 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: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Hate-crime = Thought crime?
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 151 of 376 (538966)
12-11-2009 11:54 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by Legend
12-07-2009 6:46 PM


Legend responds to me:
quote:
quote:
quote:
Please show me (post and paragraph) where I'm advocating terrorism.
I've done so already. Multiple times.
No you haven't.
Did you or did you not say:
beating someone to death should be condemned for what it is, not be seen as different just because the victim happens to belong to a certain ethnic or sexual group.
Did you or did you not say:
they indirectly propagate racism and increase racial tensions.
Did you or did you not say:
and most importantly: hate-crimes are thought crimes in that they seek to judge and condemn "evil" thoughts instead of just evil actions.
Hate crimes are acts of terrorism, plain and simple. Your trivializing of them and dismissal of the attempts to prosecute the people who commit them appropriately is an advocation of terrorism.
You can disagree with my conclusion if you wish, but let's not pretend that you didn't say what you did.
quote:
Just because I'm supporting that hate-crime labels detract from the real crime doesn't mean that I'm advocating terrorism
So your entire argument is semantics? If we called it "domestic terrorism," you'd be OK with it? Do you seriously think people are stupid enough not to understand what the underlying crime is?
That isn't what you were arguing. You were saying that prosecuting people for terrorism actually causes terrorism, is only a prosecution of "thoughts," and most importantly, isn't important because we already got them for a crime, why bother taking it more seriously?
A car rolls down a hill and crashes into a house, killing the occupant. Is it an accident? Reckless endangerment? Manslaughter? Murder one? Murder two? By your logic, we wouldn't want to be too harsh lest we "indirectly propagate tension" in the community. We certainly can't make the distinction between murder one and murder two because that would require that we "seek to judge and condemn 'evil' thoughts." Hell, let's just call it a tragic accident and not prosecute it at all because it should only be "condemned for what it is, not seen as different," right?
The fact that you are trivializing and dismissing a crime committed against an entire class of people through a proxy of an individual is precisely an adovcation of terrorism.
Prove me wrong. Prove that your complaint is simply semantic. That you'd support renaming these laws "domestic terrorism." Explain how it is that people won't have the exact same reaction because they'll actually think the underlying crime is something different due simply to the name we call it rather than the actual reason why we're prosecuting it.
quote:
quote:
When you denigrate hate crimes laws, you are saying that terrorism isn't a crime.
...huh?!
You heard me. Hate crimes laws penalize terrorism. To denigrate them is to say that terrorism isn't a crime.
quote:
If you really want to connect my rejection of the validity or necessity of hate-crime laws with advocating terrorism, you'll have to show where I said or implied that people who commit crimes in order to intimidate others shouldn't be punished. Post and paragraph please!
Already done. Did you or did you not say:
beating someone to death should be condemned for what it is, not be seen as different just because the victim happens to belong to a certain ethnic or sexual group.
You seem to think that we shouldn't actually prosecute people for terrorism. Nah, it's just simple assault. The fact that it is the latest in a string of incidents shouldn't be considered. No, they're all isolated, we should never look at the larger picture, never consider that perhaps acts are connected to things outside the immediate environs.
You're advocating terrorism.
quote:
quote:
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed should only be charged with consipracy to commit aggravated vandalism, right? OK, maybe accessory to some counts of involuntary manslaughter,....
...double huh?!
Well, we shouldn't "indirectly propagate tension," right? To treat it as terrorism would be to "seek to judge and condemn 'evil' thoughts," right? If we were to consider it something more would mean that it is "seen as different" rather than "condemning it for what it is," right? Those are your arguments.
Why are you backing away from them now?
quote:
you're forgetting about the 3000 first-degree murders?
No, it's "involuntary manslaughter." To call it "first degree murder" would "indirectly propagate tension," which you abhor. It would "seek to judge and condemn 'evil' thoughts," which you declared anathema. It would mean we are not "condeming it for what it is" but rather are insisting that it be "seen as different," which you have indicated you detest.
So why is it you are quite ready to abandon your principles with it's a brown foreigner who does it compared to a local race-baiter?
quote:
surely you must have heard about this 9/11 thing?
Of course, but to try him for his "'evil thoughts," would be wrong, isn't that what you said? To point out that he engaged in terrorism would "propagate tension" which is a bad thing, isn't that what you said? It's treating his actions as "different" rather than "for what they are," which is a horrible thing to do, isn't that what you said?
So at worst, he's guilty of aggravated vandalism with some secondary counts of involuntary manslaughter. Anything else would be unconstitutional, right? To dare to consider it terrorism would violate every single argument you put forward against hate crimes.
If it's no good against the local hooligan, why does it suddenly become legitimate against the foreigner?
quote:
What's his message got to do with the punishment he should receive?
That's what makes it terrorism rather than just a bunch of isolated incidents.
And you wonder why you keep getting tagged as advocating terrorism. Why is it that if it's done by a brown foreigner, it suddenly becomes "terrorism" while if the local bigot does it, it's just an isolated incident that we shouldn't treat the same lest there be "tension" that makes us "see it as different" rather than "for what it is" or even worse, that we "seek to judge and condemn 'evil' thoughts"?
quote:
Who the hell cares what his message was?
The people prosecuting him care. It's what lets them understand that what he did was an act of war, not just a bunch of isolated incidents.
quote:
3000 people died here, surely that's enough to punish anyone many times over.
Yep. For aggravated vandalism with some counts of involuntary manslaughter thrown in. Anything else would just "propagate tension," making us "see it as different" rather than "for what it is," and any prosecution based on that would be to "seek to judge and condemn for 'evil' thoughts."
Why is it when a brown foreigner does it, it's terrorism but when a local hooligan does it, it's just an isolated incident?
quote:
If he was a climate-change activist and his message was a warning to the biggest-polluting nation in the world would it have made anything any better?
No. That's why we prosecute the ELF for terrorism, too. You seem to think that the details of the message are the issue. Instead, the issue is that the act is being used as a message in the first place. It commits a crime against society using an individual as the proxy.
That's what makes it terrorism.
quote:
You're falsely trying to associate hate-crimes with terrorism.
And I would say you're falsely trying to separate them. Hate crimes are terrorism by definition.
And that's why you keep getting tagged as advocating terrorism.
quote:
As you can see, you don't have to try to instill terror in order to be accused of a hate crime.
Huh? I see the exact opposite: You have to try to instill terror in order to be accused of a hate crime. To commit crimes against a class of people through the use of a proxy is precisely terrorism. If you're a thug who happens to hate people of a certain race and you leap out at the next person around the corner in order to mug him, the fact that he's one of those that you hate isn't terrorism.
Can you show me a single case where this has happened? Where anybody has been charged with a hate crime simply because the victim happened to be of a particular class? Your other example fell apart upon examination. No charge was filed, no arrest, not even an investigation. Has anybody ever been convicted just because of the class of the victim?
quote:
The difference is only one of perception.
So there's no such thing as terrorism and Khalid Sheikh Mohammad is only to be charged with aggravated vandalism with a few associated counts of involuntary manslaughter.
And you wonder why you keep getting tagged as advocating terrorism.
quote:
The motive of the attack makes little difference on the victim.
Then why did we go to war over the attacks on the WTC and Pentagon?
quote:
A rape victim feels the same regardless of whether they've been raped because they wore the 'wrong' clothes or because they were the 'wrong' race.
But a rape is directed at the individual, not the entire class of people like the victim.
quote:
What is there to gain by calling it a 'hate-crime' other than alluding some extra significance to the race/religion/sexuality of the victim ?
It would be recognizing it "for what it is," which you seem to be so insistent about.
quote:
'Terrorism' is a loaded and ambiguous term.
So is "murder." And yet, I don't see you challenging it.
quote:
If by 'terrorism' you solely mean intending to instill fear in or influence a specific group/community then yes, it is.
That isn't what I asked. I asked you if you thought attacking someone as a proxy for everybody else in that class is terrorism.
quote:
No. No crime should be punished for its motive.
And thus, we should do away with murder because what distinguishes it from manslaughter is motive.
When you start complaining about charges of murder, we'll start believing your complaints about charges of hate crime. The justifications and methods of prosecuting such are identical so if it's a crap argument for one, why does it suddenly gain legitimacy for the other?

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 128 by Legend, posted 12-07-2009 6:46 PM Legend has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by Legend, posted 12-13-2009 5:54 AM Rrhain has replied
 Message 173 by Legend, posted 12-13-2009 5:41 PM Rrhain has replied

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


Message 152 of 376 (538967)
12-12-2009 12:32 AM
Reply to: Message 133 by Legend
12-09-2009 1:01 PM


Legend writes:
quote:
Well let's see : there is an automatic life sentence for murder
Not in the United States. Second degree murder is for any term up to life. First degree murder is life minimum and possibly the death penalty (federal).
Individual states have their own laws. California, for example, has eight distinctions:
Plain second degree is 15 to life. Second degree using a firearm or a motor vehicle is 20 to life. If this is your second murder, it's 15 to life or possibly life without parole. Second degree murder of a police officer is 25 to life or possibly life without parole.
Plain first degree murder is 25 to life. If it's a hate crime or murder of an operator or driver, it's life without parole. If it's murder with special circumstances, it's life without parole or the death penalty.
Texas is different. Depending upon the type of murder, the sentence can be anywhere from two years to the death penalty.
Are you saying the US is in arrears in treating different types of murder differently?
quote:
why do you think that a racist killer needs to punished more than, say, a contract killer?
I don't. I think a killer that seeks to attack an entire group through the proxy of an individual should be punished more than one who seeks to attack only the individual in question. The former is an attack on a greater number of people even if only a single person is killed while the latter is only an individual case.
By your logic, someone who kills two people should only be prosecuted for one since, given the UK's automatic life sentence for murder, there's no point in going overboard and prosecuting the person for all the crimes carried out. Isn't the one enough?
quote:
if you find current sentencing inadequate and not deterrent enough then why aren't you campaigning for stricter sentencing rather than for introducing 'new' crimes.
Because terrorism isn't new nor is it the same as other crimes. Here in the US, we have a class of crimes that are referred to as violating the "RICO Act." It is for crimes that involve racketeering: RICO stands for Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations. It recognizes that organized crime is different than simple crime. Stealing as an individual act of a single robber is different from stealing as part of an organized system of crime and thus has different prosecutorial standards and sentencing guidelines.

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 133 by Legend, posted 12-09-2009 1:01 PM Legend has not replied

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


Message 153 of 376 (538968)
12-12-2009 12:47 AM
Reply to: Message 136 by New Cat's Eye
12-10-2009 11:48 AM


Catholic Scientist writes:
quote:
from wiki
Wikipedia is your reference? Please. Let's try a real source (Los Angeles' County District Attorney's Office):
California Hate Crimes Statutes
Felonies
P.C. 422.7 — Commission of a crime for the purpose of interfering with another’s exercise of civil rights.
P.C. 594.3 — Vandalism of place of worship based on racial or religious bias.
P.C. 11412 — Threats obstructing exercise of religion.
P.C. 11413 — Use of destructive device or explosive or commission of arson in certain places.
Misdemeanors
P.C. 302 — Disorderly conduct during an assemblage of people gathered for religious worship at a tax-exempt place of worship.
P.C. 422.6 — Use of force, threats or destruction of property to interfere with another’s exercise of civil rights.
P.C. 422.9 — Violation of civil order (Bane Act) protecting the exercise of civil rights.
P.C. 538(c) — Unauthorized insertion of advertisements in newspapers and redistribution to the public.
P.C. 640.2 — Placing handbill, notice or advertisement on a consumer product or product package without authorization.
P.C. 11411 — Terrorism of owner or occupant of real property. Placement or display of sign, symbol or other physical impression without authorization, engagement in pattern of conduct, or burning or desecration of religious symbols.
Enhancements
P.C. 190.2(a)(16) — Special circumstances imposing the Death Penalty or Life Without possibility of Parole if the victim was intentionally killed because of race, color, religion, nationality, country of origin.
P.C. 190.3 — Special circumstances imposing Life Without possibility of Parole if the victim was intentionally killed because of sexual orientation, gender or disability.
P.C. 422.75 — Penalty for felony committed because of victim’s race, color, religion, nationality, country of origin, ancestry, disability or sexual orientation shall be enhanced one, two or three years in prison, if the person acts alone; and 2, 3 or 4 years if the person commits the act with another.
It would help if we looked at what the laws actually say and not what we wish they would, California Penal Codes:
422.55. For purposes of this title, and for purposes of all other
state law unless an explicit provision of law or the context clearly
requires a different meaning, the following shall apply:
(a) "Hate crime" means a criminal act committed, in whole or in
part, because of one or more of the following actual or perceived
characteristics of the victim:
(1) Disability.
(2) Gender.
(3) Nationality.
(4) Race or ethnicity.
(5) Religion.
(6) Sexual orientation.
(7) Association with a person or group with one or more of these
actual or perceived characteristics.
(b) "Hate crime" includes, but is not limited to, a violation of
Section 422.6.
quote:
The law isn't suppose to punish motive, but hate crime laws do.
No, they don't. They punish intent, which all criminal laws do. Since you don't seem to complain about any other laws that punish in the same way, your protestations regarding hate crimes laws ring hollow.
Edited by Rrhain, : Wanted to give more details.

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 136 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-10-2009 11:48 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-14-2009 11:30 AM Rrhain has replied

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


Message 154 of 376 (538969)
12-12-2009 12:51 AM
Reply to: Message 137 by Legend
12-10-2009 1:03 PM


Legend writes:
quote:
I've also pointed that out a dozen times or more on this thread to both Straggler and Rrhain. They just totally ignore it and move on as if it just doesn't invalidate a major part of their argument.
Incorrect. Instead, we point out that the laws punish intent, like all other laws do. The differenc between murder one and murder two is intent. The difference among murder and manslaughter and reckless endangerment is intent.
If you think that intent needs to be removed, then you are arguing that there is no such thing as murder.

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 137 by Legend, posted 12-10-2009 1:03 PM Legend has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by Legend, posted 12-12-2009 6:40 AM Rrhain has replied

  
Legend
Member (Idle past 5006 days)
Posts: 1226
From: Wales, UK
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 155 of 376 (538996)
12-12-2009 6:40 AM
Reply to: Message 154 by Rrhain
12-12-2009 12:51 AM


Let's get this one straight
Rrhain writes:
If you think that intent needs to be removed, then you are arguing that there is no such thing as murder.
Who's arguing that intent needs to be removed? The only person here who's even mentioned it is YOU! On the contrary, I have been condemning the punishment of Motive, in addition to Intent, that hate-crime laws impose.
Once again, you've set yourself a nice little strawman to attack.
Rrhain writes:
The differenc between murder one and murder two is intent. The difference among murder and manslaughter and reckless endangerment is intent.
Thank you for finally admitting it! So far you've been implying that Motive is being punished as standard. I'm glad you finally caught up with the facts.
Now please tell me: What causes a crime to be tagged as a 'hate'-crime? Is it the Intent or is it the Motive? To make it easier for you (as you seem to get easily confused) here's a definition and example of Intent and Motive
quote:
Intent refers only to the state of mind with which the act is done or omitted. It differs from motive, which is what prompts a person to act or to fail to act. For example, suppose Billy calls Amy names and Amy throws a snowball at him. Amy's intent is to hit Billy with a snowball. Her motive may be to stop Billy's taunts.
If Amy threw snowballs at Billy because Billy was the wrong race/gender/etc that would be classed as a hate-crime. Why would that be? Is it because of Amy's *Intent* or is it because of Amy's *Motive* ?

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by Rrhain, posted 12-12-2009 12:51 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by Straggler, posted 12-12-2009 9:27 PM Legend has not replied
 Message 174 by Rrhain, posted 12-14-2009 2:16 AM Legend has replied

  
Iblis
Member (Idle past 3895 days)
Posts: 663
Joined: 11-17-2005


Message 156 of 376 (539069)
12-12-2009 7:04 PM
Reply to: Message 140 by onifre
12-11-2009 10:18 AM


"Hate the Haters"
Hey mang. I'm picking on you (yes, again) because your (hilarious, shot Mountain Dew out my nose) post inspired this line of thought for me. But my questions are really for everyone in this argument.
onifre writes:
If we were having this discussion in a bar, at this point we'd both be completely intoxicated and looking for some bigots to beat the shit out of.
Bigots are a minority, aren't they? Both in the real statistical sense, a small subset of a large group, but also in the silly-ass language-is-what-we-say-it-is liberal sense some people are using it in, any subset organized to assert special rights for itself.
So, would crimes targeting bigots qualify as "hate crimes"? Think about this carefully, come up with reasons why or why not. ACLU does work for them, check. Not a protected class however, check. Keep thinking.
Now let's walk through some examples. What if a couple of white guys beat up some people for showing strong bigotry toward women?
Now, what if those people happen to be black guys, and that bigotry happens to be loud vile rap music with lyrics encouraging violence toward women? And what if those black guys advance the claim that that's just a cultural thing for them, and they have every right to enjoy their music? Is it a hate crime yet?
Super. Now let's try the same scenario, in reverse. What if some white radicals beat the crap out of some klansmen for the usual stuff, wearing sheets, shouting racial epithets. Hey man, that's their culture down heah. Is it a hate crime, or isn't it?
Is your answer the same to both questions? If not, why not?
Now let's do more substitution. What if it's white women, members of the actual offended class, beating up the black rap fans? What if it's black men, again members of the actual offended group, beating up the klansmen?
Is your answer the same for all 4 scenarios? If not, why not? What is the difference that makes the difference? Are you some kind of racist?
Now, let's try one more question. What if someone worked to subvert the rule of law to create legislation that specifically targeted one class of people so as to make sure they received a more severe punishment for specific crimes than people not of that class received for the exact same crimes? Wouldn't trying to do that be a hate crime?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by onifre, posted 12-11-2009 10:18 AM onifre has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by Straggler, posted 12-13-2009 10:39 AM Iblis has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 157 of 376 (539082)
12-12-2009 9:20 PM
Reply to: Message 149 by Legend
12-11-2009 4:37 PM


Re: Buuurp!
Legend writes:
I hate to break this to you but a significant percentage of crime among youths is caused by boredom.
Which part of this are you too stupid to understand?
If Catholics (for example) are being targeted with the intent to remove them from the local community or restrict their rights in any way then the exact thought processes of the perpetrators are irrelevant. Your whole "thought crime" paradigm is just wrong headed drivel.
Are Catholics being targeted because those targeting them hate Catholics? Or because they were bored and specifically decided to target the Catholics in the community for no other reason than boredom? Or because Puff the magic dragon appeared in a vision and told them that they had to target Catholics to get to Puffy Paradise? Who gives a fuck why in the ridiculous terms you are trying to impose on this issue?
The point is that a sub-section of the local community are being intentionally targeted and intimidated in a manner that is not reflected by the indivudual crimes being committed against individual members of that sub-community. "Targeted Subjugation" as I have called it throughout this thread. And as you have repeatedly failed to address.
Beating up Catholics and vandalising their houses with anti-Catholic slogans and propaganda are NOT just acts of random assault and vandalism. How the fuck does it help anyone to ignore this fact and carry on as if these were isolated incidents committed by one random individual on another?
What is your actual poistion here? Because in one post you are arguing that hate laws are completely ineffective as a deterrent and yet in the next you are making the media led assertion that people are being deterred even from thinking and speaking freely because they are terrified of committing hate crimes. Can you not see the blatant contradiction in these two positions?
Do you actually have a coherent argument? Or are you just grasping at random and contradictory post-hoc rationalisations of an ill considered preconcieved position?
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by Legend, posted 12-11-2009 4:37 PM Legend has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 180 by Legend, posted 12-14-2009 12:22 PM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 158 of 376 (539083)
12-12-2009 9:27 PM
Reply to: Message 155 by Legend
12-12-2009 6:40 AM


Try Again
Legend writes:
Rrhain writes:
If you think that intent needs to be removed, then you are arguing that there is no such thing as murder.
Who's arguing that intent needs to be removed?
You are. My entire argument can be summed as "Evidenced intent to subjugate". Yet you reject it on ideological grounds.
Legend writes:
The only person here who's even mentioned it is YOU!
Do a search on this thread for posts with the word "intent" in them and I think you will find that you are indisputably wrong.
Legend writes:
On the contrary, I have been condemning the punishment of Motive, in addition to Intent, that hate-crime laws impose.
Regardless of motive for doing so (Mommy didnt love me, they get all the jobs, Puff the magic dragon told me to do it) do you recognise that committing a crime against an individual with the wider intent to intimidate a sub-community can both exist and be evidenced?
If not why not?
Edited by Straggler, : Fix quotes

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by Legend, posted 12-12-2009 6:40 AM Legend has not replied

  
Legend
Member (Idle past 5006 days)
Posts: 1226
From: Wales, UK
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 159 of 376 (539107)
12-13-2009 5:54 AM
Reply to: Message 151 by Rrhain
12-11-2009 11:54 PM


The view from inside your small intestine is severely restricted - part 1
Legend writes:
Please show me (post and paragraph) where I'm advocating terrorism.
Rrhain writes:
Did you or did you not say:
quote:
beating someone to death should be condemned for what it is, not be seen as different just because the victim happens to belong to a certain ethnic or sexual group.
Once more: SHOW ME how this implies advocating terrorism.
Rrhain writes:
Did you or did you not say:
quote:
they indirectly propagate racism and increase racial tensions.
Once more: SHOW ME how this implies advocating terrorism.
Rrhain writes:
Did you or did you not say:
quote:
and most importantly: hate-crimes are thought crimes in that they seek to judge and condemn "evil" thoughts instead of just evil actions.
Once more: SHOW ME how this implies advocating terrorism.
So, because I claim that hate-crime laws detract from the severity of the crime, increase racial tensions and condemn "evil" thoughts........you've concluded that I'm advocating terrorism ??!?
* BLINK *
Have you heard of Propositional and Predicate Logic Well, you've just raped them both. Both ways. And then took a dump on their broken bodies as they lied motionless on the floor.
And this is putting it mildly.
Rrhain writes:
Hate crimes are acts of terrorism, plain and simple.
You keep bringing up this red herring despite my showing you that intent to terrorise is not necessary for a crime to be classes as a 'hate'-crime. All it takes is a racially/etc aggravated motive. If you have a nightclub fight with someone and you call them a paki/black/etc bitch instead of just a 'bitch', hey presto, you're charged with a 'hate-crime'. Oh, but I forget, you assume that this is a proxy attack on the whole community, Because you can naturally read the perpetrator's thoughts. But, hey, no you're not supporting Thought Control at all now, are you?
Rrhain writes:
Your trivializing of them and dismissal of the attempts to prosecute the people who commit them appropriately is an advocation of terrorism.
SHOW ME where I've "disimissed attempts to prosecute the people who commit them"! On the contrary, I've fully supported punishing people for what they've done. Instead of why they've done it ! You're just pulling things out of your arse now!
Rrhain writes:
So your entire argument is semantics? If we called it "domestic terrorism," you'd be OK with it?
You can call it what you like! That's the rub: calling it something else DOESN'T BENEFIT ANYONE. What's important is the ACT they've committed. Calling it this or that won't undo the act, won't make the victims feel better and won't deter the perpetrators. Oh, but I forget: it will make people like you able to sleep better at night, knowing that you've done your bit to fight bigotry. Oh well, it must all be worth it then!
Rrhain writes:
You were saying that prosecuting people for terrorism actually causes terrorism
No. Read again. I said that punishing people extra for 'hate'-crimes increases racial tensions. Because it gives the impression that one race's life is valued more than another race's life. Just like any other measure ever invented that appeared to treat people differently depending on their race/gender/etc. Surely, even you can understand that "increases racial tensions" is not the same as "causes terrorism" ! But yeah, keep pulling things out of your arse, it really helps to support your position. Not.
Gotta go for now. There's only so much violations of reason and distortions of facts I can cope with at any one time.
Edited by Legend, : spelling

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by Rrhain, posted 12-11-2009 11:54 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by Straggler, posted 12-13-2009 6:03 AM Legend has not replied
 Message 175 by Rrhain, posted 12-14-2009 3:41 AM Legend has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 160 of 376 (539110)
12-13-2009 6:03 AM
Reply to: Message 159 by Legend
12-13-2009 5:54 AM


Re: The view from inside your small intestine is severely restricted - part 1
Legend writes:
I said that punishing people extra for 'hate'-crimes increases racial tensions. Because it gives the impression that one race's life is valued more than another race's life.
Which races are being more valued in terms of the law?
Be specific.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by Legend, posted 12-13-2009 5:54 AM Legend has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 161 of 376 (539144)
12-13-2009 10:39 AM
Reply to: Message 156 by Iblis
12-12-2009 7:04 PM


Re: "Hate the Haters"
Iblis writes:
Not a protected class however, check. Keep thinking.
Yes let's keep thinking. Which are the "protected classes"?
Be specific.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by Iblis, posted 12-12-2009 7:04 PM Iblis has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by onifre, posted 12-13-2009 11:40 AM Straggler has replied

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3630 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 162 of 376 (539145)
12-13-2009 10:46 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Rrhain
11-28-2009 5:56 AM


I was going to respond to the OP, then I realized that my reply wouldn't be as good as yours.
Isn't this all obvious?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Rrhain, posted 11-28-2009 5:56 AM Rrhain has not replied

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3630 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 163 of 376 (539151)
12-13-2009 11:13 AM


Ok, well I will add this if it hasn't already been said in a fashion.
The simple reason for adding an additional penalty to a hate crime is because the crime is directed both at the individual and at others who are part of that targeted group. If I stab a person because they are gay, and there is reason and evidence to believe that that stabbing was also intended as a message to other gays that they should be afraid, and that they may be targeted next, simply because of their affiliation, then that is an additional crime. You are harming one individual, while at the same time, inciting fear in a group.
It is not much different from burning a cross on a black man's lawn. The point is not that you were burning wood, and may have violated a county ordinance against burning something in an improper burning receptacle. The point is that you are trying to scare or intimidate someone. That is a separate crime from the improper use of firewood.
Now the reason why such a law might carry more of a penalty if it was directed at a black man than at a white man, is because it is unlikely that if a white man had a cross burned on his lawn by another white man, that the rest of the entire white community would be fearful that by being white, they might also be in more danger than other people. But if say a black gang was specifically targeting white people by tying white people up and hanging them from a tree with a sign around their neck that said , "whiteys watch out, we are coming after you"...then you might have something there. That crime would certainly be more scary to the community than simply tying some person up for no reason and then letting them leave.
Not so hard a concept to follow is it?
Edited by Bolder-dash, : spelling

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by onifre, posted 12-13-2009 12:07 PM Bolder-dash has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 164 of 376 (539157)
12-13-2009 11:40 AM
Reply to: Message 161 by Straggler
12-13-2009 10:39 AM


Re: "Hate the Haters"
Which are the "protected classes"?
Be specific.
The rich upper class....
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by Straggler, posted 12-13-2009 10:39 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by Straggler, posted 12-13-2009 12:28 PM onifre has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 165 of 376 (539160)
12-13-2009 12:07 PM
Reply to: Message 163 by Bolder-dash
12-13-2009 11:13 AM


The simple reason for adding an additional penalty to a hate crime is because the crime is directed both at the individual and at others who are part of that targeted group.
So you add more of a penalty to an individual who commited a single crime because of the feelings the rest of the targeted group may or may not be experiencing? How does anyone know what the community is feeling?
Sounds a bit shitty to me.
You are harming one individual, while at the same time, inciting fear in a group.
How can you possibly know the feelings of an entire group?
It is not much different from burning a cross on a black man's lawn. The point is not that you were burning wood, and may have violated a county ordinance against burning something in an improper burning receptacle. The point is that you are trying to scare or intimidate someone. That is a separate crime from the improper use of firewood.
Fair enough, it is two seperate crimes. And there is punishment for harassment, vandalism, etc. The hate crime laws don't cover some unregulated crimes in society. Everything the hate crimes are said to address is already addressed in regular laws.
Now the reason why such a law might carry more of a penalty if it was directed at a black man than at a white man, is because it is unlikely that if a white man had a cross burned on his lawn by another white man, that the rest of the entire white community would be fearful that by being white, they might also be in more danger than other people.
And you know for a fact that the black community trembles in fear if a cross burns in another black persons house, while the white community feels nothing when a cross burns in a white persons house?
Are you saying this as fact, or is this your opinion?
But if say a black gang was specifically targeting white people by tying white people up and hanging them from a tree with a sign around their neck that said , "whiteys watch out, we are coming after you"...then you might have something there.
Yes, you'd have a group of people murdering another group of people.
That crime would certainly be more scary to the community than simply tying some person up for no reason and then letting them leave.
How could you possibly know the feelings of an entire community?
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by Bolder-dash, posted 12-13-2009 11:13 AM Bolder-dash has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by Bolder-dash, posted 12-13-2009 12:27 PM onifre has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024