Why racism is contemptible

[Blaidd Drwg]

I wouldn't be surprised if Doughboy was behind this whole thing.

That would be delightful.

[milosz]

you think it absurd that we distinguish between accidentally killing someone in a tussle that escalated versus planning, and executing a scheme to take a life for personal gain?

Um... nope, never said that.

The point is that at their core, "Hate" legislation targets thought crimes.

Thought crime? You mean, the mindset and intent of a criminal? The things that differentiate between first and second degree murder... yeah.

Now, presumably you mean that it targets thought crime in the Orwellian sense, punishing people for hatefulness in itself. Doesn't work that way, unfortunately for your point - and you won't be able to cite a case where a hate crime was prosecuted in the US without being linked to some other felonious act.

[Blaidd Drwg]

You claimed hate crimes and various flavors of homicide were equally ridiculous. If ridiculousness and absurdness is too much poetic license, I apologize. Your point is no less daft. We have clear legal precedent and completely logical reasons for treating accidental homicide differently from premeditated murder.

The fact "hate crimes", like any number of additive charges, must attach to an underlying criminal complaint makes them no less absurd. In fact, it makes it more absurd. You already have a charge of, say assault and battery, there is no purpose but to dissuade certain types of motivations (thoughts) for committing said offense as if the offense is not significantly offensive or that certain groups deserve more protection. Bullshit. The only class of persons who deserve more protection than any other are children and the mentally ill who are unable to consent to the rest of the rights and responsibilities inherent ion the n the law. Hate crime legislation is immoral at its core and arbitrary in its execution. Like the practice of banning so called hate speech in Europe, it's contemptible and counterproductive. Banning ideas and motivations doesn't work.

[seeahill]

BD,
I'd like to argue the point but you are right.

On rare occasions, I think you're wrong. The murder of Matthew Shepard in Wyoming is a case in point.

http://www.matthewshepard.org/our-story

[Blaidd Drwg]

BD,
I'd like to argue the point but you are right.

On rare occasions, I think you're wrong. The murder of Matthew Shepard in Wyoming is a case in point.

http://www.matthewshepard.org/our-story

You don;t need legislation to recognize what happened to Sheppard, or Byrd was heinous. Whether the killers ever used the word fag or nigger. We punish actions.

[seeahill]

BD,
I'd like to argue the point but you are right.

On rare occasions, I think you're wrong. The murder of Matthew Shepard in Wyoming is a case in point.

http://www.matthewshepard.org/our-story[/quote



You don;t need legislation to recognize what happened to Sheppard, or Byrd was heinous. Whether the killers ever used the word fag or nigger. We punish actions.

absolutely agreed.

[milosz]

You claimed hate crimes and various flavors of homicide were equally ridiculous.

What I said was that "hate crimes" are no more ridiculous than degrees of murder or the difference in manslaughter and murder; you'll not find one sentence of mine that suggests that those distinctions are themselves ridiculous.

Would you like to follow the bouncing ball on what that means?

We have clear legal precedent and completely logical reasons for treating accidental homicide differently from premeditated murder.

Indeed - and this "clear legal precedent" and these "logical reasons" are what make for the existence of hate crimes legislation.

The fact "hate crimes", like any number of additive charges, must attach to an underlying criminal complaint makes them no less absurd.

So that's an admission that it's not about Big Brother's "thought crimes."

In fact, it makes it more absurd. You already have a charge of, say assault and battery, there is no purpose but to dissuade certain types of motivations (thoughts) for committing said offense as if the offense is not significantly offensive or that certain groups deserve more protection.

You mean like the already existing laws on the books that treat "assault and battery" of a police officer, a husband/wife or a stranger differently?
Hmm...

Hate crime legislation is immoral at its core and arbitrary in its execution.

There you go, your opposition to hate crimes is ideological - not based on some rational, abstract love of American jurisprudence and tradition and Superman and etc..
Which is cool, when you're honest about it - but make that argument, not the illogical crap about hate crimes being unprecedented in American law.

[Blaidd Drwg]

Slice that onion as fine as you like. You're not remotely making sense.

I never said hate crimes were unprecedented. I said you they were not the same as the way we parse real crimes, theft, murder, fraud etc. Bullshit additive crimes legislation-say three strikes laws are all over the books. They are wrong. Most of them are born of a similar nanny state notion of what motivates people. The two in question, 3 strikes and "Hate" crimes are simply evil. Full stop.

[tonkadtx]

Matthew Shepard; possibly the most famous hate crime in American History; was not really a hate crime. He was killed over a drug debt by someone he had slept with before. This doesn't make it any less awful but it exposes the three main flaws with Hate Crime laws. 1) The are used for political gain. 2) They are not enforced evenly or unilaterally. 3) They create protected classes of citizens who are "more equal" than others.

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=277685&page=1

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/09/23/bo ... ated-than/

[DrDonkeyLove]

I haven't paid much attention to "hate crimes". As I understand it most violent crimes are crimes against the victim and the state.

Hate crimes, because they are directed against a member of a protected group, are also crimes against a protected community which the state has decided is an extra bad crime against the state worthy of extra punishment???

The whole thing feels like divisive make the protected group feel better bullshit to me, but I'm particularly ignorant in this area. Feel free to educate me.

[Blaidd Drwg]

I haven't paid much attention to "hate crimes". As I understand it most violent crimes are crimes against the victim and the state.

Hate crimes, because they are directed against a member of a protected group, are also crimes against a protected community which the state has decided is an extra bad crime against the state worthy of extra punishment???

The whole thing feels like divisive make the protected group feel better bullshit to me, but I'm particularly ignorant in this area. Feel free to educate me.

You are well ahead of the curve. It's not much more complicated than that.

[milosz]

I never said hate crimes were unprecedented.

couple hundred years of American jurisprudence and then English Common law before that is on par with a legislative concept drummed up in the last 40 years to address collective racial discomfort?

Stick to the ideological argument, at least it's consistent.

[Turdacious]

I heard that once people actually protested because one group faced bigger legal sanctions than a protected group. I even heard there was a whole movement against it in the 60's. I even heard that one guy who was involved got his birthday made into a national holiday.

[Blaidd Drwg]

I never said hate crimes were unprecedented.

couple hundred years of American jurisprudence and then English Common law before that is on par with a legislative concept drummed up in the last 40 years to address collective racial discomfort?

Stick to the ideological argument, at least it's consistent.

You really have no concept of the difference between philosophical underpinnings of a law and legal precedent.

I'd suggest you stick to doing whatever it is you do well but you've given no evidence such an activity exists.

[Thatcher II]

I haven't paid much attention to "hate crimes". As I understand it most violent crimes are crimes against the victim and the state.

Hate crimes, because they are directed against a member of a protected group, are also crimes against a protected community which the state has decided is an extra bad crime against the state worthy of extra punishment???

The whole thing feels like divisive make the protected group feel better bullshit to me, but I'm particularly ignorant in this area. Feel free to educate me.

My understanding here is that there are no "protected groups". So if you're stabbed to death by a Pakistani for "being white" it's a hate crime. It's a crime where the motivation is hatred of the group of the victim (ethnic, religious, racial, sexual). So we're all protected as individuals and as members of whatever groups we belong to. Open to correction.

[TerryB]

I haven't paid much attention to "hate crimes". As I understand it most violent crimes are crimes against the victim and the state.

Hate crimes, because they are directed against a member of a protected group, are also crimes against a protected community which the state has decided is an extra bad crime against the state worthy of extra punishment???

The whole thing feels like divisive make the protected group feel better bullshit to me, but I'm particularly ignorant in this area. Feel free to educate me.

My understanding here is that there are no "protected groups". So if you're stabbed to death by a Pakistani for "being white" it's a hate crime. It's a crime where the motivation is hatred of the group of the victim (ethnic, religious, racial, sexual). So we're all protected as individuals and as members of whatever groups we belong to. Open to correction.

If you don't like it, get the hell out!

[Blaidd Drwg]

Gorbd is correct. The legislation doesn't specify which class of persons is protected.

"What is relevant to determine prosecution for a hate crime is whether any race or some other "protected characteristic" not "protected groups" was a factor in why a person targeted that/those individual/s to be their victim. e.g. If a "black" person targets a "white" person to be their victim simply because of his/her race or perceived race, whatever their accompanying rationale, they would be subject to hate crime prosecution. However, it's not without merit to determine their rationale, because it's within their rationale that one may verify if a true hate crime has been committed. This is why hate crimes are difficult to prosecute, because they essentially involve prosecuting thoughts rather than physical crimes, which are easier to prove"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_crime ... ted_States

There are huge swaths of people who feel it should not apply to whites but they would run into an equal protection problem. In fact, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the law with a white victim. It's wrong either way.

[DrDonkeyLove]

I haven't paid much attention to "hate crimes". As I understand it most violent crimes are crimes against the victim and the state.

Hate crimes, because they are directed against a member of a protected group, are also crimes against a protected community which the state has decided is an extra bad crime against the state worthy of extra punishment???

The whole thing feels like divisive make the protected group feel better bullshit to me, but I'm particularly ignorant in this area. Feel free to educate me.

My understanding here is that there are no "protected groups". So if you're stabbed to death by a Pakistani for "being white" it's a hate crime. It's a crime where the motivation is hatred of the group of the victim (ethnic, religious, racial, sexual). So we're all protected as individuals and as members of whatever groups we belong to. Open to correction.

If you don't like it, get the hell out!

Uh, he is out.

[tonkadtx]

My understanding here is that there are no "protected groups". So if you're stabbed to death by a Pakistani for "being white" it's a hate crime. It's a crime where the motivation is hatred of the group of the victim (ethnic, religious, racial, sexual). So we're all protected as individuals and as members of whatever groups we belong to. Open to correction.

Of course it is. Applied equally and fairly. I have this bridge over here for sale...

Feds Charge Texas Man With Hate Crime in 'Knockout Game' Attack

Eric Holder's Justice Department has charged a white suburban Houston man with a federal hate crime for sucker-punching a 79-year-old black man in a "knockout game," a violent trend that has been sweeping the nation.

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/hate-c ... /id/543969

[Blaidd Drwg]

[Thatcher II]

Targeting someone for a violent attack based on ethnicity or sexual preference or religion is deserving of special punishment in a civil society. It is an attack on the cohesion of and freedoms in that society. It is an attack on us all.

If you murder someone in a fit of rage or jealousy, or you suffered domestic abuse for years and snapped, then your sentence is likely to reflect that human reality. Likewise, if you chose to go out and harm "a gay / black / Muslim / Jew/ Romany" you deserve particular loathing and are guilty of extremely anti-social, pernicious behaviour. You deserve what you get for that "hate crime". Fucking spot on. You're a complete faggot if you don't agree with me 1,000,000 per cent.

[Blaidd Drwg]

More pie, Rant. You need significantly more Pie.

[milosz]

Eric Holder's Justice Department has charged a white suburban Houston man with a federal hate crime for sucker-punching a 79-year-old black man in a "knockout game," a violent trend that has been sweeping the nation.

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/hate-c ... /id/543969[/quote]

Mad lols at "Eric Holder's Justice Department" - yeah, man, I'm sure this came on orders from on high.

[tonkadtx]

Targeting someone for a violent attack based on ethnicity or sexual preference or religion is deserving of special punishment in a civil society. It is an attack on the cohesion of and freedoms in that society. It is an attack on us all.

If you murder someone in a fit of rage or jealousy, or you suffered domestic abuse for years and snapped, then your sentence is likely to reflect that human reality. Likewise, if you chose to go out and harm "a gay / black / Muslim / Jew/ Romany" you deserve particular loathing and are guilty of extremely anti-social, pernicious behaviour. You deserve what you get for that "hate crime". Fucking spot on. You're a complete faggot if you don't agree with me 1,000,000 per cent.

I guess I am a complete faggot. BUN SQUEEZES FOR EVERYONE! Show me the statistics of hate crime legislation being applied fairly and unilaterally. It's the same reason I am against the death penalty. I do not believe it is applied fairly based on race, income, politics, etc.

[Blaidd Drwg]

It's the same reason I am against the death penalty. I do not believe it is applied fairly based on race, income, politics, etc.

bingo.