Are hate crime enhancements fair?

[odeon]

If it was obvious that the motive of the crime was out of actual hatred, then possibly enhancements could be fair.

Take race for example. How do we consider what the person done is out of racial hatred or just saying words like "nigger" etc. without thinking? It's hard to consider their internal motives like that unless they put up grafitti stating "i hate black people" or something like that.

This also brings me to another thing, again using the same race example - some people will use the race card against someone. A white man assaults a black man, but the black man could easily use the race card to say the reason behind the assault was racially motivated, when in reality it probably wasn't.

How do you know?

I guess you don't.

...

I don't know what you're trying to point out. I never stated I knew one's motives, it's a hypothetical example. The whole point is that it's hard to know one's motives unless they literally spell it out in various forms.

Want an example of the use of the "race card"? My uncle has experienced this, when the black neighbours above him claimed he said and did racist things in order to get him arrested. The thing is, he didn't, they only wanted to get him kicked out of his apartment for their own agenda. They admitted this afterwards after a lengthy court case. Obviously, he was not racist and in fact was in good relations with his neighbours beforehand. He let them use his laptop, gave them Christmas cards etc. and that was the thanks he got. :/

It's safe to assume that because of the example I pointed out above, people do use the "race card". Obviously not all people do it, but some would if it meant getting an advantage. Is it racist to point that out? I don't think so. If anything, it really shows racism can go both ways and should be stamped out regardless, something which people seem to forget. There's also nonsense "positive racism" motives such as affirmative action, but that's worth a thread alone in itself...

I'll fairly assume you'll try to split hairs over this.

He let them use his laptop? Wow, that sure proves things.

On a more serious note, yes, I'm perfectly aware of the race card (and others) being used and misused but that's not particularly relevant when you qualify a statement with "probably" without knowing one way or the other. Or was that "probably" because your uncle let someone use a laptop?

Make a serious argument and I might consider a serious answer. For now you are making a fool out of yourself and therefore your cause.

Next.

[TheoK]

Quick himself participated actively with the prosecutors. Hardly a good example for anything other than how liars frequently collaborate to create an even bigger lie. Wake up, mate. If he had not confessed, he would be a free man now because then they would actually have had to prove things.

You are using a highly publicised and highly unusual case to make a mostly unrelated point. It's OK. Just don't expect me or anyone else to accept the reasoning.

So if a lunatic "confesses" to have committed several crimes you should take his words for it without the most thorough examination of every detail?

Same thing again. You can't stand the thought that prosecutors and cops are themselves criminals who bust an innocent lunatic to promote their careers and by doing this are letting real murderers get away. That thought is unbearable to you, because in your world authorities "must" be trustworthy. So it's better to say "Well, it's his own fault. This is an unusual case".

[odeon]

I don't know what it's called in English, but in German it's called Weltwissen to know such things that if there is a victim card to draw, it is often drawn.

And that is supposed to prove something?

Yes, you question something that is obvious. You often do that with truths that you don't like. Look at schleeds response too.

I did. It takes a bit more than calling it the truth to actually make a relevant argument. OTOH, this is what you often do. It's called a strawman when there is an actual mostly unrelated "proof". Don't know what it's called in your case because you don't even have that.

Next.

[odeon]

Quick himself participated actively with the prosecutors. Hardly a good example for anything other than how liars frequently collaborate to create an even bigger lie. Wake up, mate. If he had not confessed, he would be a free man now because then they would actually have had to prove things.

You are using a highly publicised and highly unusual case to make a mostly unrelated point. It's OK. Just don't expect me or anyone else to accept the reasoning.

So if a lunatic "confesses" to have committed several crimes you should take his words for it without the most thorough examination of every detail?

Same thing again. You can't stand the thought that prosecutors and cops are themselves criminals who bust an innocent lunatic to promote their careers and by doing this are letting real murderers get away. That thought is unbearable to you, because in your world authorities "must" be trustworthy. So it's better to say "Well, it's his own fault. This is an unusual case".

Not what I said. Read my post again.

Liars collaborating was what I said. Notice how I didn't exactly call anyone involved trustworthy? Yes, it's a sad, sad case where the real murderers are still at large, but it's not proof of anything, Lit, except that there was no justice involved in his case. I never thought it was a bad thing to have him locked in because he was so clearly a nutter but sadly the investigations all stalled with his conviction.

What that has to do with the discussion at hand and what Schleed said about his uncle being a nice and liberal guy I have no idea.

But I suppose that is what discussion boards are for.

[TheoK]

Not what I said. Read my post again.

Liars collaborating was what I said. Notice how I didn't exactly call anyone involved trustworthy? Yes, it's a sad, sad case where the real murderers are still at large, but it's not proof of anything, Lit, except that there was no justice involved in his case. I never thought it was a bad thing to have him locked in because he was so clearly a nutter but sadly the investigations all stalled with his conviction.

What that has to do with the discussion at hand and what Schleed said about his uncle being a nice and liberal guy I have no idea.

But I suppose that is what discussion boards are for.

Someone can be locked up for decades for several murders that he didn't commit and such a system is trustworthy?

This is Average Joe's definition of "normality". You often resort to that. You chose to not use your intellect, because your world view would be turned upside down by doing so.

Examples: the authorities are usually good and trustworthy. Anarchy is bad. It's not common that people from minorities use the "victim card" to bust someone (harder). The board isn't boring compared to the old times.

[odeon]

Make an actual point and I might consider making a counter-argument. As things stand, you are certainly trying your damnest to make the board more boring than it used to be.

[TheoK]

You never read any of my anarchist links, did you? Because you already made up your mind.

And you agree with Average Joe about Pasolini being this "crazy gay with a shit fetish making sensation by shocking people". Pasolini was a great truth-teller, even though he was a marxist. That's why he was murdered.

[odeon]

Still no arguments? Perfectly understandable because it does take more than labelling something as "the truth". Now you are simply deflecting.

[TheoK]

Average Joe's "normality" definition is what makes 99% of the wrongs in the world persist. It's a true Catch-22.

[Beardy McFuckface]

I don't want to argue because of disagreeing on extremely trivial matters such as use of words blah blah

Splitting hairs it is then.

[TheoK]

 

[odeon]

I don't want to argue because of disagreeing on extremely trivial matters such as use of words blah blah

Splitting hairs it is then.

Try an actual argument, if you want an actual discussion.

[Beardy McFuckface]

I'm afraid that even if my argument fit into your unrealistic terms, it still would not be good enough.

I have noticed this pattern from you in general. You rarely give an actual argument yourself and just resort to the usual "I'm above you" kind of tone you seem to have, along with short snide retorts and general dismissal of arguments. Fine that you think what I say is silly, but like I said it's something I noticed from you.

Hey, you know what that means? We're not so different after all since I do all of this too! ...although you tend to be more childish and passive aggressive.

[TheoK]

I'm afraid that even if my argument fit into your unrealistic terms, it still would not be good enough.

I have noticed this pattern from you in general. You rarely give an actual argument yourself and just resort to the usual "I'm above you" kind of tone you seem to have, along with short snide retorts and general dismissal of arguments. Fine that you think what I say is silly, but like I said it's something I noticed from you.

Hey, you know what that means? We're not so different after all since I do all of this too! ...although you tend to be more childish and passive aggressive.

Spot on. Like I said: when he doesn't want something in his comfort zone, he resorts to this.

[Beardy McFuckface]

I don't think it was out of the comfort zone this time, really.