>> ^quantumushroom:

You mean the 50,000 gun laws on the books didn't stop Nuttieta from getting a gun and illegally carrying it around?
And not a hate crime, of course.


^ This

The point is that gun laws don't stop totally INSANE people from not having guns. So everyone's whole ""Arm Everyone" HAR HAR HAR THOSE PEOPLE ARE STUPID" line is totally wrong. Because RIGHT HERE you have your Utopia of "Gun Control" and the only person with the gun is some insane lady.

If we lived in a perfect world and you could wiggle your nose and make ALL the guns disappear I'd agree with you and say we should destroy all the guns. But we don't and we won't.

You mean the 50,000 gun laws on the books didn't stop Nuttieta from getting a gun and illegally carrying it around?

And not a hate crime, of course.

@quantumushroom
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech
not only the canucks, my dear troll.

@luxury_pie

I'm ashamed that the ACLU made up 'hate crime' laws out of thin air; more so that it was Jews (in this case, liberal Jews) behind it. I don't know if they got their cue from more repressive regimes or we gave them the 'bright' idea.

I don't have as much respect for a country that still stops BOOKS at the border (no 1st Amendment). If Canada can't handle unpopular speech, just wait until the muslims start arriving en masse.

Oh, and you lefters are getting slack. Only -2 for these comments? It should be -4, minimum!

Oh critics say something...well they must be right...make crimes harder to prosecute...yeah must be true. Please present some evidence for your claims.

http://articles.latimes.com/1995-01-29/local/me-25875_1_hate-crime-cases

Also I disagree it's Orwellian unless it's the powerful subjugating the weak with thought crimes. When it's a law for protecting the weak and minorities, I don't agree. Just doesn't make sense unless the scales are balanced.

What's more powerful than government and its badly written, randomly-enforced laws?


----

Here is the simplest way I can think of to describe it. @quantumushroom

Say some teenagers spray paint their names on one side of a Mosque and a neo-nazi group spray paints 'death to all Muslims' on the other side. Is there a difference between these crimes? Is there a difference in intent? Absolutely. The teenagers have committed vandalism. The neo-nazis have committed both vandalism and a targeted act of terrorism against a group of people.

Attacking someone because of their sexual orientation is both battery and a calculated act of terrorism against a group of people.

You don't have to agree with it, but do you at least get the distinction?

I'm aware of the difference, however, if someone hands out flyers and holds a sign saying "Exterminate all left-handed albinos", that is protected speech. What the 'hate crime' lobby is saying is, if the same individual spray paints this message on a wall that is not his property, he is to be punished both for vandalism AND the message; the latter would then be punishment of thoughtcrime.

---

The idea is that the crime is politically motivated. It is their status within society that is being targeted not themselves as individuals. What makes it a hate crime is the likelihood of it triggering others to do the same in a way that a non-politically motivated instance of crime would not.

You are smart enough to know this already QM.

Per my previous excellent examples, we can only make assumptions as to the intent of a criminal. Do you seriously think some violent teenaged punk targeting a weaker target has political motivations? How do you prove it? You cannot. A much more plausible but equally unknowable motive is that this school does not swiftly punish offenders for committing acts of violence.


Changing tracks slightly, this video is also an excellent example of how you cannot expect government to save your bacon and watch over you all the time. Every feminine-acting boy--indeed, every picked-on youth--must decide for himself at some point, though he may not like training, whether it would be worthwhile to learn rudimentary boxing or martial arts, or at the very least, how to take a punch. Krav maga on youtube: 25K videos.

The idea is that the crime is politically motivated. It is their status within society that is being targeted not themselves as individuals. What makes it a hate crime is the likelihood of it triggering others to do the same in a way that a non-politically motivated instance of crime would not.

You are smart enough to know this already QM.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Orwellian "hate crimes" are total bullsh1te. Does it matter why some thug attacks an innocent? Maybe he hated the logo on the victim's jacket. Maybe earlier he saw the victim had a large amount of cash and attacked him to steal it under the guise of bullying. Not only are hate crimes unconstitutional, as critics point out, they make crimes harder to prosecute.
Punish the crime, not what is the assumed motive.


Oh critics say something...well they must be right...make crimes harder to prosecute...yeah must be true. Please present some evidence for your claims.

Also I disagree it's Orwellian unless it's the powerful subjugating the weak with thought crimes. When it's a law for protecting the weak and minorities, I don't agree. Just doesn't make sense unless the scales are balanced.

Orwellian "hate crimes" are total bullsh1te. Does it matter why some thug attacks an innocent? Maybe he hated the logo on the victim's jacket. Maybe earlier he saw the victim had a large amount of cash and attacked him to steal it under the guise of bullying. Not only are hate crimes unconstitutional, as critics point out, they make crimes harder to prosecute.

Punish the crime, not what is the assumed motive.

Seriously though, this makes me tear up with rage. What makes it worse is everyone standing around doing nothing. And yes, that kid needs to be charge with criminal assault and hate crime (or whatever it's called in Ohio).

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

@NetRunner There is nothing intrinsically morally good about pleasure,

Right, but depriving people of pleasure, or inflicting pain on people seems to immediately become a question of morality, does it not?
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
My chief concern isn't that you have to be considerate, it is that you are considering something you can can't measure, legally. How many broken arms does it take to equal a murder? How many indecent exposures are equal to a hate crime?


Again, I don't really see that as an issue. I don't have a hard and fast rule that would be able to tell me how many broken arms equal a murder, but it seems pretty reasonable to state that there is a finite number where it would make sense, wouldn't it? Surely repetitive violent assaults would eventually earn you the same punishment as a murder as it stands now.

In any case, it's a heuristic for arriving at moral assesments, it's not meant to be a formal criminal justice system in its own right.

That said, why is breaking an arm a lesser charge than murder in the first place? Seems perfectly clear why if you look at it with a utilitarian eye, but it seems less clear if you believe that morality is entirely derived from some sequence of categorical imperatives.

@NetRunner There is nothing intrinsically morally good about pleasure, beasts of men sought it as well. My chief concern isn't that you have to be considerate, it is that you are considering something you can can't measure, legally. How many broken arms does it take to equal a murder? How many indecent exposures are equal to a hate crime?

Provided they catch anyone, police won't charge any non-White citizen with a hate crime.

Of course this is a hate crime; I hope it will be judged as such.

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

>> ^xxovercastxx:
>> ^Lawdeedaw:
>> ^xxovercastxx:
I have zero problems with breast feeding but I still think that doll is a little weird.

Not a problem at all--but you don't have a right to think it will make whores out of young girls, or laugh at it like a douche...
Which you have not--I am speaking to the Fox-asses.

Well of course they have those rights, they just have to deal with looking like morons.

There is a difference between "can" and "right". They can say what they want--even if it causes hate crimes and whatever. The doctor "could" have taken my child for not formula feeding...
It is not their "right" because governments "can" take it away. However, I say this for another reason. Let's say they wish to inflict this verbal ridicule, this verbal abuse that molds a country into bewb-o-phobes and makes it very unfriendly towards natural-feeding mothers (I.e., America) That verbal ridicule can hurt a hell of a lot worse than a slap to the face. In fact, on a side note, verbal ridicule causes some gays to harm themselves, but back to topic. Yes, you can say whatever you want. And I "can" walk up to them and break their noses. But should I? Should they? They have no right, and neither do I.


I am forced to conclude that we have very different definitions of "right". I agree there's a distinction to be made but I think it's between "should" and "right".

>> ^xxovercastxx:

>> ^Lawdeedaw:
>> ^xxovercastxx:
I have zero problems with breast feeding but I still think that doll is a little weird.

Not a problem at all--but you don't have a right to think it will make whores out of young girls, or laugh at it like a douche...
Which you have not--I am speaking to the Fox-asses.

Well of course they have those rights, they just have to deal with looking like morons.


There is a difference between "can" and "right". They can say what they want--even if it causes hate crimes and whatever. The doctor "could" have taken my child for not formula feeding...

It is not their "right" because governments "can" take it away. However, I say this for another reason. Let's say they wish to inflict this verbal ridicule, this verbal abuse that molds a country into bewb-o-phobes and makes it very unfriendly towards natural-feeding mothers (I.e., America) That verbal ridicule can hurt a hell of a lot worse than a slap to the face. In fact, on a side note, verbal ridicule causes some gays to harm themselves, but back to topic. Yes, you can say whatever you want. And I "can" walk up to them and break their noses. But should I? Should they? They have no right, and neither do I.

>> ^legacy0100:

...wtf is this bullshit. This man is spewing diarrhea out of his mouth. He is basing his argument solely on what little he knows about his own little world. I highly doubt this man has ever done any professional research over these matters, not even data collection. He's just conjuring up a theory solely based on what he has read and heard over the news media sitting in his own living room.
What he said towards the end really bothered me the most. "some religions have never had these extremists", what sources does he have?


You, sir or madam, are the one who apparently knows little to nothing about both Islam and Sam Harris. May I suggest you read "The End of Faith", or any of Harris' excellent (and researched) books, before "spewing diarrhea"-like criticisms without knowing what you're talking about.

As for Islam, look up one or many of the following effects of Islam in the world today: honour killing, fgm, suicide attacks, stoning, hate crimes, hate speech, punishments for "adultery", etc...

@bareboards2: yes, "at this moment" is a key phrase; when Christianity had Islam's age it was still all about the Inquisition and inter-faith massacres (oh, and witch-burning). But there can be no "redemption" for any religion whose core fundamentals are flawed, there can only be a watering down of its craziness with secular morality.

On the false problem of fundamentalists: http://videosift.com/video/The-problem-is-not-fundamentalists-but-the-fundamentals