INTENSITY²
Start here => What's your crime? Basic Discussion => Topic started by: bodie on November 10, 2012, 07:34:25 AM
-
A 'hate crime enhancement' is when a court imposes a tougher sentence on a crime with a racial or any other prejudice motivation.
For example
I take a can of spray paint and spray graffiti all over a mosque - a court might issue me some community service or a fine.
but
If that graffiti read "Allah sucks cock" or "shit on the Islam" then the court might decide I have to go to prison and in doing so are using a hate crime enhancement.
Fair or not?
-
I really don't know. If I were a minority person and someone stabbed me on the street,
I'd be just as injured whether he stabbed me for my color or stabbed me out of hatred of
my personality or something I had done. Never having been a minority person, I don't know
whether the hate crime enhancement would make me feel safer or more vindicated. :dunno:
-
I voted Yes
-
It's unfair and stupid, because all crimes where you insult, threaten and hurt people and destroy property just out of the lust to destroy are comitted out of hate. It doesn't matter if the victim is a Jew, a Muslim, a gay person or you just happen to dislike the size of his feet or the colour of his sweater or the fact that he's better in school or at work.
-
I put i don't know. Cus i really am on the fence with it.
I am trying to stir up some debate. :asthing:
-
:autism:
-
Yes, there's a world of difference between the pointless graffiti kids spray on any wall and the kind of hate crime that just happens to use graffiti as means to an end.
-
Voted yes also.
I think if someone does something that drives you to hate them and you hurt them as a result, that's one thing...but if you hate them just because of their race or nationality and feel the need to hurt them because of it, you need some serious help.
-
Generally I would side with no they are not fair. For one they don't seem to be applied consistently but rather politically.
-
The only objection i have is the possibility that it might be used too readily. Just say the victim of a robbery might believe they were a target of racial hatred, and convey this to police and it may have had nothing to do with hate. It may have been a totally random attack.
I think mostly it is entirely obvious, though, that a hate crime has been committed.
-
Not voting yet, due to similar thoughts as Parts has.
Kids putting "neutral" graffiti on a mosque have all chance of being accused of doing it as a hate crime.
So, when is something considered to be a hate crime.
Is stabbing someone, who is gay, a hate crime, or, does there need to be more than "just" the stabbing. And, if there is more than "just" the stabbing, could not that be used as an extra on the crime, without categorising it as a hatecrime.
-
I'm sick of seeing minorities compete for victim status, and non-minorities scouring their souls for any sign of differences so that they can come up with a new minority label and get their share of the cake. Because sometimes it is cake and not legitimate socioeconomic disadvantage. Besides if there are enough of you to get together in a group and advocate for your group's interest, you're not falling all the way through the cracks and somebody else still is. So hate crime enhancements give the appearance of punishing discrimination without actually solving the problem.
-
I think this is the first time ever that i plussed Pyraxis.
-
Generally if you kill or harm someone you don't like them so would not all crimes be hate crimes? Say I go out and rob and beat up someone it's not like I could say 'well I only did it for the money' and it would be okay.
-
Generally if you kill or harm someone you don't like them so would not all crimes be hate crimes? Say I go out and rob and beat up someone it's not like I could say 'well I only did it for the money' and it would be okay.
Exactly.
-
Doing it out of pure hatred for what someone IS though - racist because they're black, homophobic becuase they're gay etc... that's a bigger problem for society.
A lot of people who argue against it say things like "is it worse to kill a gay man or a black man than it is to kill a straight man or a white man?"
That's not what it's about though. If someone killed a straight/white man in a racist /heterophobic(!) attack, then that would be a hate crime too
The justice system is primarily meant to serve society, and hate crimes are a seperate crime in themselves
As for whether it works or not... I dunno. I can't see many people who are racist/homophobic enough to attack someone because of it being changed by these laws. But teh message it sends out is important
Didnt the inclusion of homophobic crimes in the US had something to do with the Mathew Shephard murder. An attack like that needs dealing with differently to an attack that was motivated purely by money, passion etc.
That's not to say that someone murdered/attacked becuase of another reason isn't just as much a victim or just as important a victim as someone attacked due to their ethnicity or sexuality etc. But it is different
Crimes of passion are often treated differently. All different types of crimes are. That's not to say that the motive can ever excuse the crime, but that it needs to be taken into account when sentencing. I think a lot of people who are against hate crimes legislation often over-simplify it when they're looking at it. It's not as simple as a judge saying "this crime was worse because it was directed at a transsexual or an asian man." As with ALL crimes, there are lots of different things taken into account
I don't know whether it works or not. But right now, I wouldn't support getting rid of these laws
-
Part of the problem deals with knowing the motivation for an attack, say a white supremacist goes out and kills a black guy but does nothing that implies he did it for that reason even though it was is that still a hate crime ? What if he killed him but it was over money owed does the fact that he was a racist make it a hate crime? Till they can look inside someones head and know with certainty how are we going to tell the difference? I think the over simplification is more on the people supporting the laws sure there are clear examples where the reasons were clear that is why judges have discretion in sentencing.
-
I don't see the difference. I just see this as a sideshow to distract weenies from the truly pressing issues because they're too stressed out to deal at the moment.
Most world powers are choking on greed and corruption right now. Damn that makes me sad. I know! I'll go crusade against shit nobody cares about, and make new laws about shit that doesn't matter. It'll distract me for a while.
-
There are classic cases that undoubtedly qualify as a bigotry-based crime. These should be a category.
Crime has many categories.
I don't want pot smokers to be given the same penalty as a rapist. I don't want someone sexually harassing someone to get the same penalty as a child-rapist.
In Spain a black teen kid was chased, captured, and set ablaze some years ago. In Norway a black kid was chased and stabbed to death - for being black. His alternative would have been to stop being so black. I don't want these perpetrators to be dealt with in the same way as a muggery-gone-wrong case.
Sometimes a crime has a very specific intent, often with great sadism included. This should be taken into account, be it racism or any other kind of bigotry, such as when gays are attacked and killed simply for being gay. This IS different from a jealousy-murder, or another kind of crime-of-passion or personal gain.
-
On the other hand Swedish and Norwegian girls have been harassed and raped for being Swedish and Norwegian. In Scandinavia hate crime laws don't apply to the majority, though. They do in the US, however.
-
Yes indeed. Curb stomping someone for being a nigger is not the same as beating up a black man for trying to mug you. But this is fucking common sense guys. Does there really need to be a written LAW telling you the differences in these things? Honestly now. I see all this as a gigantic waste of time.
-
On the other hand Swedish and Norwegian girls have been harassed and raped for being Swedish and Norwegian. In Scandinavia hate crime laws don't apply to the majority, though. They do in the US, however.
Fair should be fair.
If they are raped as some sort of sadistic punishment for being white, then yes, it is a hate crime. If they are raped because they were hot - then it's a rape, and should also be harshly punished - much more than it currently is (but that is another discussion).
I think people - both modernly and in the past - take the concept of killing too easily, and this attitude is supported world wide by ideas of heavens and afterlives. To ruin someones life, either by ending it, or by crippling someone, or destroying them mentally, should grant the perpetrator _very_ harsh penalties - much MUCH more than any other kind of crime, be it economic or other. It's as if global society as a whole still is not quite convinced people only have 1 life each. As if subconciously we are confident everyone will get further oportunities in "next lives".
Unless violence has been dealt in true desperation, I am inclined to propose life-in-prison for most kinds of cases.
Any violence that is "above and beyond" what's expected (serial killers, spree killers, massacres, child-rape) represent the only exceptions to my anti-death-stance. These individuals should simply be removed from the fabric of reality.
*harsh :M*
Rage: yes. In the name of pragmatism, all these common-sense-nesses actually do need to be written down. People are morons, remember? :D
-
Dude I don't think they're THAT stupid. Like I said earlier this reeks to me of zealotry. Some assholes with nothing better to do, or want to be distracted from what they really SHOULD be doing.
-
Dude I don't think they're THAT stupid. Like I said earlier this reeks to me of zealotry. Some assholes with nothing better to do, or want to be distracted from what they really SHOULD be doing.
You don't think people are how stupid?
Reminders: Modern odinism, 2012-scare, Flat Earth Society, "woman body has a way to shut that whole thang down",
I could go on.
You know this!
We need clear cut rules for people to adhere to - if they are ever in doubt - and boy, are they often in doubt :D
-
Yeah Zegh that stuff is pretty retarded, but does it normally result in mass murder? Hate crimes? Rape? Those type of things?
I ask you, is it not religion that is responsible for most everything that degenerates society? Creating a bunch of bogus laws solves nothing.
-
Rage: yes. In the name of pragmatism, all these common-sense-nesses actually do need to be written down. People are morons, remember? :D
People are smart morons, it will be abused, to write it all down.
So, the question could be about what could lead to worse, writing it all down in law, or, let justice work without it all written down.
-
There is a risk of minority groups becoming almost untouchable - could be a double edged sword. A group of people with the 'special snowflake' syndrome. Possibly fuel more hatred. Certainly create more division. A tougher sentence would likely make the perpetrator more bitter.
Perhaps courts should impose education on top of the usual sentence. A lot of hate crimes come down to ignorance.
:dunno:
A big thing here in the UK at the moment is racism in football. I think ref's are being encouraged to abandon a game if they hear any racial chanting. That seems a bit extreme. :grrr:
-
There is a risk of minority groups becoming almost untouchable - could be a double edged sword. A group of people with the 'special snowflake' syndrome. Possibly fuel more hatred. Certainly create more division. A tougher sentence would likely make the perpetrator more bitter.
Perhaps courts should impose education on top of the usual sentence. A lot of hate crimes come down to ignorance.
:dunno:
A big thing here in the UK at the moment is racism in football. I think ref's are being encouraged to abandon a game if they hear any racial chanting. That seems a bit extreme. :grrr:
That's what I meant with abuse of the writing down indeed.
And, it will be used the other way too of course: "Your honour, I mugged him, because he was setting people up to beat me up as a hate crime."
Fair judgement is depending on the wisdom of court at least as much as on the lines written in the law.
-
The racism in football thing - I think that's different to people getting beaten up for being black or something
It's getting a bit ridiculous now tbh, especially with the police getting involved in tweets etc.
-
The racism in football thing - I think that's different to people getting beaten up for being black or something
If someone gets beaten up for being black, the perpetrators should be punished, both for the beating up, as for the expressing the why, the insult, the ignoring of the right to be fully human for the victim, but, that can only happen if it is clear. And, if it is clear, I don't think there is a need to make a new category for it. The stricter the categories, the more it can be dealt with creative. It will not ban hate crimes, it will just make them more sneaky.
It's getting a bit ridiculous now tbh, especially with the police getting involved in tweets etc.
Isn't that more justified than cameras everywhere? It is written down to be read, isn't it?
-
The tweet thing is moving into very dodgy ground. A man did go to prison in the summer for a 'hate crime' message on twitter.
It makes me feel quite uneasy when we lock people up for stuff they say. :-\
-
Isn't that more justified than cameras everywhere? It is written down to be read, isn't it?
What do you mean?
I'm not against it being read, obviously. I'm talkign about police taking ACTION against people for writing insults on the internet
-
Isn't that more justified than cameras everywhere? It is written down to be read, isn't it?
What do you mean?
I'm not against it being read, obviously. I'm talkign about police taking ACTION against people for writing insults on the internet
Read you wrong there, sorry.
-
Rage, I wasn't going after religion as a scapegoat - but giving examples of how far-fetched human reasoning can easily be. Dumbness comes easy with people :D
Hyke, writing it down is practical. People have different opinions as to what is common sense. Like I said, many people simply do not consider death to even be a big deal. Terrorists will typically be fanatical and often full of "spiritual" beliefs, leading them to consider human lives - their own and others - to be entirely expendable, a mere effect in a message. All opinions are NOT valid - strictly speaking.
In science you come across this often: Many people think it's "lame" that "birds are dinosaurs", but this is not open for debate - opinion is powerless and irrelevant. People are FULL of opinions and angles and points of views, and it's up to society to come to a consensus regarding many things, such as laws and rules of conduct, and put down a firm frame around it - one that is immune to varying opinion.
-
Isn't that more justified than cameras everywhere? It is written down to be read, isn't it?
What do you mean?
I'm not against it being read, obviously. I'm talkign about police taking ACTION against people for writing insults on the internet
There are varying degrees of accountability tho. There are people, normal-enough computer-sitting people like-you-and-me, who spend their time conciously brewing violence through writing. They are being concious and clever in their manipulation, and their intention is to cause violence to happen. "Fjordman" is a very good example, as his writings included very conciously put "suggestions" to cause violence - even rushing the reader, creating tension - and famously, he was the one Breivik credited the most for being a source of inspiration.
"Fjordman" was of course relieved of all guilt, since speech is free - but obviously, normal common sense suggests that he should have shared at least a portion of the accountability. One can't just write and say exactly what comes to mind. Humans are very creative, and sometimes very clever as well, and manipulation is a real thing. Many a genocide has come from free speech. Many a murder has been verbally ordered.
I don't know about the twitter example in particular, and I'm all for free speech - but with a certain restriction. When the intention becomes clear, and the attempt to actually manipulate and create violence is there, then there should be some sort of consequence.
You keep posting links to that newspaper which keeps making people more and more bigoted. For now they are a source of eyerolls and snickers, but what if they decide to get brutal? They would allready have hundreds of thousands of loyal followers, or more? The Rwandan genocide was spurred by, amongst other, an italian in a radio channel - and we all know, we are no better than rwandans, when it comes down to it. We are no better than germans either :D
-
Im not talking about people who are inciting violence. Im talking about people being arrested for offending people
-
Im not talking about people who are inciting violence. Im talking about people being arrested for offending people
Offending, charge them for the offending.
Violence on top of that, charge them for the violence on top of that.
Offence leading to extra violence, charge them for organising more violence.
All this can be done, without naming it hate crime.
-
My point was that people shouldnt be being arrested for offending someone, full stop
-
My point was that people shouldnt be being arrested for offending someone, full stop
Depends on the severity and durance of the offending, and what it leads to. Can't rule out that someone needs to be punished for that. Systematic offending can be harmful, and contagious too, making it extra powerful.
Its all those thin lines, and all those exceptions and details that makes I would not want offending rated as hatecrime, would not want to rate anything in itself as hatecrime. Circumstances make things what they are in effect.
-
Can you give an example of where someone should have the police involved because they were offended?
-
Can you give an example of where someone should have the police involved because they were offended?
A single insult, a single offence, should not lead to that.
But, offence after offence breaks someone. Imagine at a work-floor, someone offended and offended by co-workers and superiors. That can break someone down. It changes the attitude of others towards the offended person too.
Can lead to sudden changes in job description, or other shitty things. Because that person is nothing but a....
Offence after offence is what justifies beating up a gay couple, after leaving the club they visited. Happens.
Don't want to make offending a hate crime. But, when it gets out of hand, it should be possible to act on it.
-
Bullying is a long string of offenses, and bullying can lead people to suicide.
It's an alternative to murder, and should not be so easy to get away with.
Therefore, from what I know, in for example norwegian law, there are specifications about offensive behaviour. I can't think of anybody who would call the cops on someone offending someone, but at least it's there.
-
There are already laws to deal with that - harrassment etc.
Keep on tweeting someone homophobic/racist messages, that's different
I'm talking about isolated incidents. Maybe you guys are confused as you're not familiar with the situation in the UK
-
uhm
the internet is brimming with insults :I I doubt there's an epidemic of insults and offenses being investigated by police as crimes :I
-
An epidemic? Of course not. 99% of insults aren't going to be reported to the police
There are plenty that have been though. I'm talking about in this country/.
-
There are classic cases that undoubtedly qualify as a bigotry-based crime. These should be a category.
Crime has many categories.
I don't want pot smokers to be given the same penalty as a rapist. I don't want someone sexually harassing someone to get the same penalty as a child-rapist.
In Spain a black teen kid was chased, captured, and set ablaze some years ago. In Norway a black kid was chased and stabbed to death - for being black. His alternative would have been to stop being so black. I don't want these perpetrators to be dealt with in the same way as a muggery-gone-wrong case.
Sometimes a crime has a very specific intent, often with great sadism included. This should be taken into account, be it racism or any other kind of bigotry, such as when gays are attacked and killed simply for being gay. This IS different from a jealousy-murder, or another kind of crime-of-passion or personal gain.
QFT
-
Yes indeed. Curb stomping someone for being a nigger is not the same as beating up a black man for trying to mug you. But this is fucking common sense guys. Does there really need to be a written LAW telling you the differences in these things? Honestly now. I see all this as a gigantic waste of time.
If that written law is the only way to differentiate, then yes, IMHO.
-
The tweet thing is moving into very dodgy ground. A man did go to prison in the summer for a 'hate crime' message on twitter.
It makes me feel quite uneasy when we lock people up for stuff they say. :-\
Agreed. But at the same time, let's say you have a racist stirring things up on Twitter, pushing followers to beat up someone for being black or gay or whatever. Eventually, he reaches his goal and that someone is severely beaten. When, if ever, should that sort of thing be punishable?
-
That's different thoguh - that would be incitement to violence.
What's happening now is different
-
That's different thoguh - that would be incitement to violence.
What's happening now is different
Can you give some more specific examples? What it is like in the UK?
-
Hate crime enhancements create thought crimes. I understand what purpose they are trying to serve, but my personal philosophy on the law is that it should always remain as subjective as possible. If you strike someone in the face you have committed the crime of striking someone in the face. If you strike someone in the face and the prosecutor can convince a group of 6-12 partially engaged citizens that you were thinking hateful thoughts about that person's race when you hit him, then the crime is worse? That doesn't make sense to me, and runs the risk of destabilizing the entire system. The most important asset the law has going for it is that it is accepted by all as inherently fair. When that is lost, the whole thing comes crashing down.
-
If you hit someone in the face except in self-defence, it was committed out of hate or at least Schadenfreude, so who the victim was doesn't matter. It's as bad in any case.
-
The tweet thing is moving into very dodgy ground. A man did go to prison in the summer for a 'hate crime' message on twitter.
It makes me feel quite uneasy when we lock people up for stuff they say. :-\
Agreed. But at the same time, let's say you have a racist stirring things up on Twitter, pushing followers to beat up someone for being black or gay or whatever. Eventually, he reaches his goal and that someone is severely beaten. When, if ever, should that sort of thing be punishable?
I understand about inciting violence. The tweeter had said something like 'i hope he dies' about a player that had keeled over on the pitch. No, it is not very nice, but is it worthy of a custodial sentence? I think if you are going to have freedom of speech, then freedom it is. If it has exceptions then it is not freedom of speech.
Is it reasonable to assume that everyone 'likes' everyone else. No. So, i don't think people should be locked up for saying something nasty. Obviously that is what he was thinking, so are we going to have the thought police out next :tard:
-
Hate crime enhancements create thought crimes. I understand what purpose they are trying to serve, but my personal philosophy on the law is that it should always remain as subjective as possible. If you strike someone in the face you have committed the crime of striking someone in the face. If you strike someone in the face and the prosecutor can convince a group of 6-12 partially engaged citizens that you were thinking hateful thoughts about that person's race when you hit him, then the crime is worse? That doesn't make sense to me, and runs the risk of destabilizing the entire system. The most important asset the law has going for it is that it is accepted by all as inherently fair. When that is lost, the whole thing comes crashing down.
There have been many cases where people have been severely beaten or killed for no other reason than their sexual orientation or the colour of their skin. IMO, something like that needs to be taken into account.
-
An ex of mine was bullied in school, because her father's farm went well. That's out of hatred too, though judicially not a hate crime.
-
An ex of mine was bullied in school, because her father's farm went well. That's out of hatred too, though judicially not a hate crime.
Bullying is punishable by law, but unfortunately it's seldom enforced in any way.
-
Well, i reserve my right to hate whoever i want :-*
-
Hate crime enhancements create thought crimes. I understand what purpose they are trying to serve, but my personal philosophy on the law is that it should always remain as subjective as possible. If you strike someone in the face you have committed the crime of striking someone in the face. If you strike someone in the face and the prosecutor can convince a group of 6-12 partially engaged citizens that you were thinking hateful thoughts about that person's race when you hit him, then the crime is worse? That doesn't make sense to me, and runs the risk of destabilizing the entire system. The most important asset the law has going for it is that it is accepted by all as inherently fair. When that is lost, the whole thing comes crashing down.
There have been many cases where people have been severely beaten or killed for no other reason than their sexual orientation or the colour of their skin. IMO, something like that needs to be taken into account.
How do you prove motivation? It's far easier to prove objective facts. Is it really a worse crime to have your teeth knocked in because you are gay, than to have your teeth knocked in because someone mistook you for someone who owes him money?
-
Today it emerges that a nineteen year old man has been arrested because he showed a picture of himself burning a poppy on facebook.
Yes it offended me. The poppy is a symbol i hold very dear. However, we are becoming a society that increasingly chooses to 'tell the authorities' whenever we get offended. It is ridiculous. I think the poppy symbolises those who lost their lives so that we could be free. I also include the freedom to cause offence in that.
-
How could it be illegal to burn a poppy? ???
-
I dunno. Crazy.
-
Hate crime enhancements create thought crimes. I understand what purpose they are trying to serve, but my personal philosophy on the law is that it should always remain as subjective as possible. If you strike someone in the face you have committed the crime of striking someone in the face. If you strike someone in the face and the prosecutor can convince a group of 6-12 partially engaged citizens that you were thinking hateful thoughts about that person's race when you hit him, then the crime is worse? That doesn't make sense to me, and runs the risk of destabilizing the entire system. The most important asset the law has going for it is that it is accepted by all as inherently fair. When that is lost, the whole thing comes crashing down.
There have been many cases where people have been severely beaten or killed for no other reason than their sexual orientation or the colour of their skin. IMO, something like that needs to be taken into account.
How do you prove motivation? It's far easier to prove objective facts. Is it really a worse crime to have your teeth knocked in because you are gay, than to have your teeth knocked in because someone mistook you for someone who owes him money?
Yes, IMHO, because such things feed further hate crimes while the mistaken identity cases rarely cause further crimes.
-
How could it be illegal to burn a poppy? ???
better than burning poopy methinks :zoinks:
-
Hate crime enhancements create thought crimes. I understand what purpose they are trying to serve, but my personal philosophy on the law is that it should always remain as subjective as possible. If you strike someone in the face you have committed the crime of striking someone in the face. If you strike someone in the face and the prosecutor can convince a group of 6-12 partially engaged citizens that you were thinking hateful thoughts about that person's race when you hit him, then the crime is worse? That doesn't make sense to me, and runs the risk of destabilizing the entire system. The most important asset the law has going for it is that it is accepted by all as inherently fair. When that is lost, the whole thing comes crashing down.
There have been many cases where people have been severely beaten or killed for no other reason than their sexual orientation or the colour of their skin. IMO, something like that needs to be taken into account.
How do you prove motivation? It's far easier to prove objective facts. Is it really a worse crime to have your teeth knocked in because you are gay, than to have your teeth knocked in because someone mistook you for someone who owes him money?
Yes, IMHO, because such things feed further hate crimes while the mistaken identity cases rarely cause further crimes.
The assumption here being that the criminal is already being prosecuted. If you take the stance that the prison sentence handed out for the actual crime is punitive in nature, and not rehabilitative, then I guess it makes sense that you want this criminal away from society for longer due to his motivation. I prefer to hope that incarceration serves a rehabilitative function, and as such the criminal is given the same chances to make positive changes whether or not he gets an extra year because he was thinking something non-PC when he committed the crime. I know this is fantasy in my country, but this conversation is theoretical anyway.
By the same stance, do you think that certain motivations warrant life sentences without parole? The pedophile who is arrested for loitering around a playground? His crime is minor, but his motivation is never going to go away, and will only lead to greater crimes. Does the citizen have the presumption of innocence until he commits a crime, or should we preemptively incarcerate?
-
Hate crime enhancements create thought crimes. I understand what purpose they are trying to serve, but my personal philosophy on the law is that it should always remain as subjective as possible. If you strike someone in the face you have committed the crime of striking someone in the face. If you strike someone in the face and the prosecutor can convince a group of 6-12 partially engaged citizens that you were thinking hateful thoughts about that person's race when you hit him, then the crime is worse? That doesn't make sense to me, and runs the risk of destabilizing the entire system. The most important asset the law has going for it is that it is accepted by all as inherently fair. When that is lost, the whole thing comes crashing down.
There have been many cases where people have been severely beaten or killed for no other reason than their sexual orientation or the colour of their skin. IMO, something like that needs to be taken into account.
How do you prove motivation? It's far easier to prove objective facts. Is it really a worse crime to have your teeth knocked in because you are gay, than to have your teeth knocked in because someone mistook you for someone who owes him money?
Yes, IMHO, because such things feed further hate crimes while the mistaken identity cases rarely cause further crimes.
The assumption here being that the criminal is already being prosecuted. If you take the stance that the prison sentence handed out for the actual crime is punitive in nature, and not rehabilitative, then I guess it makes sense that you want this criminal away from society for longer due to his motivation. I prefer to hope that incarceration serves a rehabilitative function, and as such the criminal is given the same chances to make positive changes whether or not he gets an extra year because he was thinking something non-PC when he committed the crime. I know this is fantasy in my country, but this conversation is theoretical anyway.
By the same stance, do you think that certain motivations warrant life sentences without parole? The pedophile who is arrested for loitering around a playground? His crime is minor, but his motivation is never going to go away, and will only lead to greater crimes. Does the citizen have the presumption of innocence until he commits a crime, or should we preemptively incarcerate?
Good point. First of all, I don't really believe in rehabilitation, but that's neither here nor there. Second, I could argue that yes, while my views do include motivation, yours do away with premeditation. I'd suspect that the way to go would be somewhere between the two.
But I can't say I have thought through all the ramifications of what I'm saying. :-\
-
I think rehabilitation is possible. Not in all cases.
Prison is something i would only use when that person is considered a danger to the public.
-
Hate crime enhancements create thought crimes. I understand what purpose they are trying to serve, but my personal philosophy on the law is that it should always remain as subjective as possible. If you strike someone in the face you have committed the crime of striking someone in the face. If you strike someone in the face and the prosecutor can convince a group of 6-12 partially engaged citizens that you were thinking hateful thoughts about that person's race when you hit him, then the crime is worse? That doesn't make sense to me, and runs the risk of destabilizing the entire system. The most important asset the law has going for it is that it is accepted by all as inherently fair. When that is lost, the whole thing comes crashing down.
There have been many cases where people have been severely beaten or killed for no other reason than their sexual orientation or the colour of their skin. IMO, something like that needs to be taken into account.
How do you prove motivation? It's far easier to prove objective facts. Is it really a worse crime to have your teeth knocked in because you are gay, than to have your teeth knocked in because someone mistook you for someone who owes him money?
Yes, IMHO, because such things feed further hate crimes while the mistaken identity cases rarely cause further crimes.
The assumption here being that the criminal is already being prosecuted. If you take the stance that the prison sentence handed out for the actual crime is punitive in nature, and not rehabilitative, then I guess it makes sense that you want this criminal away from society for longer due to his motivation. I prefer to hope that incarceration serves a rehabilitative function, and as such the criminal is given the same chances to make positive changes whether or not he gets an extra year because he was thinking something non-PC when he committed the crime. I know this is fantasy in my country, but this conversation is theoretical anyway.
By the same stance, do you think that certain motivations warrant life sentences without parole? The pedophile who is arrested for loitering around a playground? His crime is minor, but his motivation is never going to go away, and will only lead to greater crimes. Does the citizen have the presumption of innocence until he commits a crime, or should we preemptively incarcerate?
Good point. First of all, I don't really believe in rehabilitation, but that's neither here nor there. Second, I could argue that yes, while my views do include motivation, yours do away with premeditation. I'd suspect that the way to go would be somewhere between the two.
But I can't say I have thought through all the ramifications of what I'm saying. :-\
Good conversation :) At the very least we prove that us old folks aren't completely boring ;)
I haven't done Crim yet, but the only crime I am aware of so far that takes premeditation into account is homicide. There is something of a legal fiction involved in that premeditation can be formed in the split second before you bean someone in the head with a shovel, but that's another conversation. Personally, I can see how homicide would be the poster child against hate enhancements. The victim is equally dead, there isn't anything worse that can be done to him. Is it really "fair" to give a lesser sentence to someone who killed your kid because he owed him money than you would give to someone who killed your kid because he is gay, or black, or Norwegian? Isn't that devaluing certain homicides in light of others? Why is my kid's life worth less than yours just because your kid's killer was thinking something different from my kid's killer? They are both equally dead.
-
Good conversation :) At the very least we prove that us old folks aren't completely boring ;)
I haven't done Crim yet, but the only crime I am aware of so far that takes premeditation into account is homicide. There is something of a legal fiction involved in that premeditation can be formed in the split second before you bean someone in the head with a shovel, but that's another conversation. Personally, I can see how homicide would be the poster child against hate enhancements. The victim is equally dead, there isn't anything worse that can be done to him. Is it really "fair" to give a lesser sentence to someone who killed your kid because he owed him money than you would give to someone who killed your kid because he is gay, or black, or Norwegian? Isn't that devaluing certain homicides in light of others? Why is my kid's life worth less than yours just because your kid's killer was thinking something different from my kid's killer? They are both equally dead.
Yes, I agree it's devaluing homicide and that makes me doubt myself--my sense of right and wrong suggests it's somehow more wrong to kill because the victim is gay or black or Norwegian, but you make an excellent point.
You'll make a better lawyer than me. :zoinks:
-
I haven't done Crim yet, but the only crime I am aware of so far that takes premeditation into account is homicide. There is something of a legal fiction involved in that premeditation can be formed in the split second before you bean someone in the head with a shovel, but that's another conversation.
What is the legal fiction - that it is possible to form premeditation in that split second, or that it is not possible?
-
I haven't done Crim yet, but the only crime I am aware of so far that takes premeditation into account is homicide. There is something of a legal fiction involved in that premeditation can be formed in the split second before you bean someone in the head with a shovel, but that's another conversation.
What is the legal fiction - that it is possible to form premeditation in that split second, or that it is not possible?
The legal fiction, in my opinion, is that "premeditation" can mean whatever the state wants to to mean. Leaving it to a jury to decide what the intent was at the moment that someone hit someone with a brick, as compared to the second before, causes me the same heartburn as the conversation above. A legitimate finder of fact can never point to evidence "beyond a reasonable doubt" as to what someone was thinking in one second of their life.
-
Rage, I wasn't going after religion as a scapegoat - but giving examples of how far-fetched human reasoning can easily be. Dumbness comes easy with people :D
Hyke, writing it down is practical. People have different opinions as to what is common sense. Like I said, many people simply do not consider death to even be a big deal. Terrorists will typically be fanatical and often full of "spiritual" beliefs, leading them to consider human lives - their own and others - to be entirely expendable, a mere effect in a message. All opinions are NOT valid - strictly speaking.
In science you come across this often: Many people think it's "lame" that "birds are dinosaurs", but this is not open for debate - opinion is powerless and irrelevant. People are FULL of opinions and angles and points of views, and it's up to society to come to a consensus regarding many things, such as laws and rules of conduct, and put down a firm frame around it - one that is immune to varying opinion.
I hate to use a scapegoat myself man, but if the shoe fits..
Let me clarify. Religion is another situation where people find an outlet for whatever it is in their minds that makes them want to make rules and labels for EVERYTHING. As its been said before in this thread, this can easily be twisted around to the benefit of these kind of people.
I like your general way of thinking. Society is full of opposing thoughts and views, but you seem to believe there is essentially one "true" truth at the core of every issue. And it can be found using science, reason, and good old common sense. I personally believe that we shouldn't have to pay taxes here in my country for people to sit on their fat asses in a comfy chair all day and come up with new ways of telling people what to do. Every day.
-
What is the legal fiction - that it is possible to form premeditation in that split second, or that it is not possible?
The legal fiction, in my opinion, is that "premeditation" can mean whatever the state wants to to mean. Leaving it to a jury to decide what the intent was at the moment that someone hit someone with a brick, as compared to the second before, causes me the same heartburn as the conversation above. A legitimate finder of fact can never point to evidence "beyond a reasonable doubt" as to what someone was thinking in one second of their life.
Got it.
-
I haven't done Crim yet, but the only crime I am aware of so far that takes premeditation into account is homicide. There is something of a legal fiction involved in that premeditation can be formed in the split second before you bean someone in the head with a shovel, but that's another conversation.
What is the legal fiction - that it is possible to form premeditation in that split second, or that it is not possible?
The legal fiction, in my opinion, is that "premeditation" can mean whatever the state wants to to mean. Leaving it to a jury to decide what the intent was at the moment that someone hit someone with a brick, as compared to the second before, causes me the same heartburn as the conversation above. A legitimate finder of fact can never point to evidence "beyond a reasonable doubt" as to what someone was thinking in one second of their life.
The whole law is made up so that the state can "interpret" it by will. The law is there to keep people in check, not to create justice.
-
I haven't done Crim yet, but the only crime I am aware of so far that takes premeditation into account is homicide. There is something of a legal fiction involved in that premeditation can be formed in the split second before you bean someone in the head with a shovel, but that's another conversation.
What is the legal fiction - that it is possible to form premeditation in that split second, or that it is not possible?
The legal fiction, in my opinion, is that "premeditation" can mean whatever the state wants to to mean. Leaving it to a jury to decide what the intent was at the moment that someone hit someone with a brick, as compared to the second before, causes me the same heartburn as the conversation above. A legitimate finder of fact can never point to evidence "beyond a reasonable doubt" as to what someone was thinking in one second of their life.
The whole law is made up so that the state can "interpret" it by will. The law is there to keep people in check, not to create justice.
In my country the state prosecutes and a jury interprets fact while a judge interprets law. No one-sided interpretations here as we operate on an adversarial trial system.
-
No, no, it works the way I told in every country.
-
No, no, it works the way I told in every country.
I'll take my first hand experience over your conspiracy theoretical :M :zoinks:
-
It's not a conspiracy theory at all. The sick fucks in charge make up laws that no one never gave consent to. Then they break these laws themselves, if they feel for it, which of course isn't allowed for "common people". That's why they say that states have "rights" de facto, i.e. states are criminal organisations that do whatever they get away with but expect their citizens to obey the rules that they never gave their consent to.
-
It's not a conspiracy theory at all. The sick fucks in charge make up laws that no one never gave consent to. Then they break these laws themselves, if they feel for it, which of course isn't allowed for "common people". That's why they say that states have "rights" de facto, i.e. states are criminal organisations that do whatever they get away with but expect their citizens to obey the rules that they never gave their consent to.
Sounds again like you are describing a code system of law. My country operates under the common law, which means the laws have been in place for hundreds of years. Nobody who "created" them is still available to take advantage of them. Many new laws are also created by popular vote, such as legalizing MJ and gay marriage this past election. The law isn't the boogeyman that you make it out to be. :nerdy:
-
Why should you obey laws that you never gave your consent to? And if anyone had given their consent to a law, shouldn't that law be abolished when the ones who gave their consent and the ones who made the law are dead?
-
Why should you obey laws that you never gave your consent to? And if anyone had given their consent to a law, shouldn't that law be abolished when the ones who gave their consent and the ones who made the law are dead?
I don't buy into your argument that one must consent to a law to be obligated by it, otherwise catholic priests should be given free reign to fuck all the little kids they can handle - cuz they never consented not to. But let's pretend for a moment that I did accept your basic premise. My argument would be that by remaining in the country, you are giving your consent. You can always leave.
-
Why should you obey laws that you never gave your consent to? And if anyone had given their consent to a law, shouldn't that law be abolished when the ones who gave their consent and the ones who made the law are dead?
I don't buy into your argument that one must consent to a law to be obligated by it, otherwise catholic priests should be given free reign to fuck all the little kids they can handle - cuz they never consented not to. But let's pretend for a moment that I did accept your basic premise. My argument would be that by remaining in the country, you are giving your consent. You can always leave.
So the legislators own the country? That's the only way in which you could be morally obliged to obey a law that you didn't give consent to.
-
Why should you obey laws that you never gave your consent to? And if anyone had given their consent to a law, shouldn't that law be abolished when the ones who gave their consent and the ones who made the law are dead?
I don't buy into your argument that one must consent to a law to be obligated by it, otherwise catholic priests should be given free reign to fuck all the little kids they can handle - cuz they never consented not to. But let's pretend for a moment that I did accept your basic premise. My argument would be that by remaining in the country, you are giving your consent. You can always leave.
So the legislators own the country? That's the only way in which you could be morally obliged to obey a law that you didn't give consent to.
The legislators were elected by popular vote to represent the people who own the country. So, yes.
-
Why should you obey laws that you never gave your consent to? And if anyone had given their consent to a law, shouldn't that law be abolished when the ones who gave their consent and the ones who made the law are dead?
I don't buy into your argument that one must consent to a law to be obligated by it, otherwise catholic priests should be given free reign to fuck all the little kids they can handle - cuz they never consented not to. But let's pretend for a moment that I did accept your basic premise. My argument would be that by remaining in the country, you are giving your consent. You can always leave.
So the legislators own the country? That's the only way in which you could be morally obliged to obey a law that you didn't give consent to.
The legislators were elected by popular vote to represent the people who own the country. So, yes.
And when did every single person living in the country accept this system? The US Constitution wasn't a result of direct democracy. And even if it were, how could forcing democracy be morally right?
-
Why should you obey laws that you never gave your consent to? And if anyone had given their consent to a law, shouldn't that law be abolished when the ones who gave their consent and the ones who made the law are dead?
I don't buy into your argument that one must consent to a law to be obligated by it, otherwise catholic priests should be given free reign to fuck all the little kids they can handle - cuz they never consented not to. But let's pretend for a moment that I did accept your basic premise. My argument would be that by remaining in the country, you are giving your consent. You can always leave.
So the legislators own the country? That's the only way in which you could be morally obliged to obey a law that you didn't give consent to.
The legislators were elected by popular vote to represent the people who own the country. So, yes.
And when did every single person living in the country accept this system? The US Consitution wasn't a result of direct democracy. And even if it were, how could forcing democracy be morally right?
Every single person will never agree to anything. The will of the majority rules, and every 2 years the will of the majority chooses a legislature. They could all vote for representatives that would call for a new constitutional convention and throw the whole thing out, but they don't. They don't, because they consent to the current arrangement.
-
Why should you obey laws that you never gave your consent to? And if anyone had given their consent to a law, shouldn't that law be abolished when the ones who gave their consent and the ones who made the law are dead?
I don't buy into your argument that one must consent to a law to be obligated by it, otherwise catholic priests should be given free reign to fuck all the little kids they can handle - cuz they never consented not to. But let's pretend for a moment that I did accept your basic premise. My argument would be that by remaining in the country, you are giving your consent. You can always leave.
So the legislators own the country? That's the only way in which you could be morally obliged to obey a law that you didn't give consent to.
The legislators were elected by popular vote to represent the people who own the country. So, yes.
And when did every single person living in the country accept this system? The US Consitution wasn't a result of direct democracy. And even if it were, how could forcing democracy be morally right?
Every single person will never agree to anything. The will of the majority rules, and every 2 years the will of the majority chooses a legislature. They could all vote for representatives that would call for a new constitutional convention and throw the whole thing out, but they don't. They don't, because they consent to the current arrangement.
Most people could not vote when the United States of America were "founded".
Tell me exactly how majority rule is morally right. Is 5 kilos more "right" than 1 kilo, because that's the principle of majority rule.
-
Most people could not vote when the United States of America were "founded".
But they can now, and they choose to reset the same system every two years. That's my point.
Tell me exactly how majority rule is morally right. Is 1 kilo more "right" than 5 kilos, because that's the principle of majority rule.
Sorry, I can't tell what you are asking here.
-
But they can now, and they choose to reset the same system every two years. That's my point.
They didn't accept the system voluntarily to start with, so the system has no moral right to exist. It's nothing more than a "might is right" system, as any state or union of states on this planet.
Sorry, I can't tell what you are asking here.
I wrote wrong. According to "democratic" principles 5 kilos should be "right" vs. 1 kilo. If you put it that way, you see how absurd it is.
-
But they can now, and they choose to reset the same system every two years. That's my point.
They didn't accept the system voluntarily to start with, so the system has no moral right to exist. It's nothing more than a "might is right" system, as any state or union of states on this planet.
Sorry, I can't tell what you are asking here.
I wrote wrong. According to "democratic" principles 5 kilos should be "right" vs. 1 kilo. If you put it that way, you see how absurd it is.
Define a "moral right to exist". Better yet, give me an example of something you you deem has a moral right to existence.
And what are we measuring? Is 5 kilos of satisfied people better than 1 kilo of satisfied people? Yes. Should 5 kilos of satisfied people's opinion overrule 1 kilo of dissatisfied people's opinion? It depends ... and this is where democracy gets tricky.
-
There are two men and one woman on a deserted island. The men democratically decide that they should rape the woman. This is "right" according to your system, since it's a 2/3 majority. That's actually the principle that you use to get laws through in the Congress.
-
There are two men and one woman on a deserted island. The men democratically decide that they should rape the woman. This is "right" according to your system, since it's a 2/3 majority. That's actually the principle that you use to get laws through in the Congress.
Should 5 kilos of satisfied people's opinion overrule 1 kilo of dissatisfied people's opinion? It depends ... and this is where democracy gets tricky.
You didn't answer my first question.
-
According to democracy it's "right" that a majority rapes a minority.
I am of course not in favour of such a rape system.
-
According to democracy it's "right" that a majority rapes a minority.
I am of course not in favour of such a rape system.
"Democracy" is a single aspect of a well-functioning society. As I have said twice now, "it depends". The majority does not have the right to repress the rights of minority groups for instance. This is why democracy has to be combined with a broad, correctly written constitution, and a strong, independent judiciary dedicated to upholding said constitution.
I take it you are not going to answer my question?
-
What should I answer? No one has the right to rule someone else. Democracy is as wrong as dictatorship. Anyone has the right to do what he pleases as long as he doesn't hurt anyone else. The one trying to stop him from enjoying his natural rights is the real criminal. Thus all states are criminal.
-
Anyone has the right to do what he pleases as long as he doesn't hurt anyone else.
And who enforces that caveat? Who makes the determination if one's actions are hurting someone else? Who decides when it is okay to hurt someone else because failing to hurt one person a little will result in hurting many people a much greater amount? How is the person, or people, making these decisions not "ruling" people in the way you are decrying?
-
In most cases it would regulate itself, unlike this instutionalized rape that is called "the state", "democracy" etc.
Wir sind alle Terroristen (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3T4t-A593hI#ws)
-
In most cases it would regulate itself, unlike this instutionalized rape that is called "the state", "democracy" etc.
How? And what do you do in the cases where it doesn't?
-
In most cases it would regulate itself, unlike this instutionalized rape that is called "the state", "democracy" etc.
How? And what do you do in the cases where it doesn't?
Most things regulate themselves if left alone. The sheer ignorance of this fact depends on brainwash from the state.
The state on the other hand can't protect you. If the mafia wants to kill you, how would the state protect you from that, even if it wanted to?
-
In most cases it would regulate itself, unlike this instutionalized rape that is called "the state", "democracy" etc.
How? And what do you do in the cases where it doesn't?
Most things regulate themselves if left alone. The sheer ignorance of this fact depends on brainwash from the state.
The state on the other hand can't protect you. If the mafia wants to kill you, how would the state protect you from that, even if it wanted to?
Rather than answer the questions posed to you in the style of true debate, you keep changing the subject or whitewashing over your answers much in the style of a religious zealot trying to justify their "faith". :(
-
What do you want me to answer?
Simple fact: there exists no "social contract", since no one ever gave their consent to something like that. There has never been a situation where men free from a state sat down and totally voluntarily and from a totally equal negotiation position made something like that up.
-
What do you want me to answer?
This is my fourth and last attempt. After you dodge it this time we will just agree to disagree :)
Define a "moral right to exist". Better yet, give me an example of something you you deem has a moral right to existence.
-
My argument would be that by remaining in the country, you are giving your consent. You can always leave.
This would make a lot more sense to me if there were more land left in the world that didn't already have a country on it.
-
My argument would be that by remaining in the country, you are giving your consent. You can always leave.
This would make a lot more sense to me if there were more land left in the world that didn't already have a country on it.
There are plenty of places that belong to a country but have no functional government. Much of Africa for instance.
-
We've had a few variations of this particular discussion. Your stamina is impressive.
-
Democracy is a catastrophe, and is _entirely_ reliant on a well educated population. Commercialism and capitalism is detrimental to a functioning democracy.
"Democracy" has become a cult-word. If you speak against it, you are a terrorist or another similar cult-word, "insurgent" maybe, who cares. I do not understand how people have come to see democracy as a synonym for complete success. India is a democracy. Kenya is a democracy. Peru is a democracy. America is a democracy. So far, "democracy" is proving to be just as disastrous as any other method of ruling a nation. Compare communist, one-party USSR (boo hoo they didn't have the freedom to wank around and wear mickey mouse hats! the injustice!!!) and federalist Russia (hurray! 70% of GDP is directly controlled by organized crime groups!)
it is just not "a single example" or "a bad apple", but it is a hallmark of what happens when you implement western style democracy (democracy + rampant market liberalism + complete removal of state control)
And Lit, I know you hate da state, but there's bad states and good states and in-between-states. Humans are wild creatures, and need to be governed. Maybe it offends you personally, but think of everyone else.
Think of when you're out driving in a car w the boys. Young, cool men often like to not wear the safety belt. Suggesting to wear it, is often interpreted as a lack of trust towards the driver, so what I tell them is: OUR driver may be good and well, but who knows what bastard may slam into our side?
An optimal government should be a regulator, to make sure the strong don't trample all over the weak, simply because they can. It also should be an "umbrella" that everyone contributes to, and that then spreads this wealth evenly, so that decent roads are built in both the rich and the poor neighborhood, and not just the one who can pay for it. Society today has reduced itself to revolve entirely around money, but luckily this is not grounded in biology, but in culture. This means that this particular issue (rampant capitalism) can be fixed French Revolution style.
*hopes*
-
Yes, like Pasolini said: This society of conformism and consumerism is the real fascism, worse than the original.
-
Ah, yes, Pasolini was a prime example of someone who would thrive in an anarchy. They guy would probably not have reached his teens. :P
-
Why? ???
-
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.
-
Why? ???
I'm assuming that the guy who killed him would not have waited for that long, nor would others pissed off by his antics. Most people do have some respect for laws and such if they are enforced.
Hell, *i* would have considered offing him.
-
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?
-
Why? ???
I'm assuming that the guy who killed him would not have waited for that long, nor would others pissed off by his antics. Most people do have some respect for laws and such if they are enforced.
Hell, *i* would have considered offing him.
It was a setup. The guy who was convicted might not have been the real murderer, he wasn't alone, at least.
I don't see why you think people would be helpless in an anarchy. In an anarchy there isn't any state monopoly on violence, so you can arm yourself better than in Vermont.
And I don't understand why you would like to kill a great artist, even he was a Bolshevik :thumbdn:
-
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?
Because many of those who can play the victim card do.
-
Why? ???
I'm assuming that the guy who killed him would not have waited for that long, nor would others pissed off by his antics. Most people do have some respect for laws and such if they are enforced.
Hell, *i* would have considered offing him.
It was a setup. The guy who was convicted might not have been the real murderer, he wasn't alone, at least.
I don't see why you think people would be helpless in an anarchy. In an anarchy there isn't any state monopoly on violence, so you can arm yourself better than in Vermont.
And I don't understand why you would like to kill a great artist, even he was a Bolshevik :thumbdn:
Not everyone would be helpless, only the weaker ones. The young, the old, the sick, the handicapped, the weirdos never meeting your eye or focussing on their collections instead on what you were saying... Or the ones with less ammo or a malfunctioning gun or...
You get the idea.
As for the great artist, I never liked his films. I know he was appreciated by some but my view of him is that what he lacked in talent he gained in shock value.
Ugly, sometimes amateurish photo, especially in his early work, and poor overall technical quality did not help.
-
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?
Because many of those who can play the victim card do.
They show the card before they are jumped on? :-\
-
You don't really believe that the state defense the weak, do you? Well, there is social security and such, but it isn't like the state is very interested in defending the average citizen.
You know very well, that if you kill a burglar who is about to rape your wife or daughter in their own bedroom 2 o'clock in the morning, you risk jail. How could this even be possible, if the state wants justice? How can you not have a carte blanche to kill someone who is attacking your family in your own home? It barely even exists in America nowadays.
Since people are stupid, you need to shock them like Pasolini did.
-
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?
Because many of those who can play the victim card do.
They show the card before they are jumped on? :-\
Well, women, immigrants and gay people who actually are jumped on but not for being women, immigrants or gay, often like to pretend that it was a hate crime
-
You don't really believe that the state defense the weak, do you? Well, there is social security and such, but it isn't like the state is very interested in defending the average citizen.
I believe that the threat of punishment will deter some of the morons that wouldn't stop to think twice without it.
You know very well, that if you kill a burglar who is about to rape your wife or daughter in their own bedroom 2 o'clock in the morning, you risk jail. How could this even be possible, if the state wants justice? How can you not have a carte blanche to kill someone who is attacking your family in your own home? It barely even exists in America nowadays.
Since people are stupid, you need to shock them like Pasolini did.
OTOH, the burglar might just as easily kill you in your sleep, THEN rape your loved ones and kill them. So easy to do when you don't risk anything more than weak and sleepy people.
I'd do what I must to protect my family and then worry about the aftermath. I have far greater faith in the system than you do, at least in part because my personal experience tells me the system works. It's nowhere near perfect but it is preferable to a world where the strongest man and the biggest gun will always prevail, no matter what the issue.
And yeah, that worked really well for Pasolini.
-
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?
Because many of those who can play the victim card do.
They show the card before they are jumped on? :-\
Well, women, immigrants and gay people who actually are jumped on but not for being women, immigrants or gay, often like to pretend that it was a hate crime
And this you know because you saw their victim cards?
-
I believe that the threat of punishment will deter some of the morons that wouldn't stop to think twice without it.
OTOH, the burglar might just as easily kill you in your sleep, THEN rape your loved ones and kill them. So easy to do when you don't risk anything more than weak and sleepy people.
Who says that he doesn't risk anything in an anarchy? The victims can still have relatives and friends, who might get even on him.
I'd do what I must to protect my family and then worry about the aftermath. I have far greater faith in the system than you do, at least in part because my personal experience tells me the system works. It's nowhere near perfect but it is preferable to a world where the strongest man and the biggest gun will always prevail, no matter what the issue.
You don't find it sick to the bone that you even have to consider going to jail for defending your loved ones from an unprovoked attack in your own home?
And yeah, that worked really well for Pasolini.
Well, he got attention at least. He was :viking:
-
Since people are stupid, you need to shock them like Pasolini did.
What? all people are stupid?? speak for yourself ;)
-
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?
Because many of those who can play the victim card do.
They show the card before they are jumped on? :-\
Well, women, immigrants and gay people who actually are jumped on but not for being women, immigrants or gay, often like to pretend that it was a hate crime
And this you know because you saw their victim cards?
There have been cases where immigrants have been denied to have an education because they didn't fulfil the criteria. Then they went to the media and claimed that it was "racism". You know this very well. It happens often in Sweden.
-
I believe that the threat of punishment will deter some of the morons that wouldn't stop to think twice without it.
OTOH, the burglar might just as easily kill you in your sleep, THEN rape your loved ones and kill them. So easy to do when you don't risk anything more than weak and sleepy people.
Who says that he doesn't risk anything in an anarchy? The victims can still have relatives and friends, who might get even on him.
I think I just did. :P
How would the relatives and friends find out?
I'd do what I must to protect my family and then worry about the aftermath. I have far greater faith in the system than you do, at least in part because my personal experience tells me the system works. It's nowhere near perfect but it is preferable to a world where the strongest man and the biggest gun will always prevail, no matter what the issue.
You don't find it sick to the bone that you even have to consider going to jail for defending your loved ones from an unprovoked attack in your own home?
I accept that it might happen. I believe that my way would increase the chances for survival for both me and my loved ones, and I believe that it would produce fewer burglars. Yours, on the other hand, would only protect you and those close to you if you were bigger and meaner than the burglar, owned bigger guns and slept lightly.
And yeah, that worked really well for Pasolini.
Well, he got attention at least. He was :viking:
I'm sure he is thrilled.
-
I have some victim cards for sale if anyone is interested :zoinks:
-
:tard:
-
:rofl: :plus:
-
Who else than PPP could have done this?
E allora mangia la merda! 8)
Salò - Eat shit (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GVV7L66xh4#ws)
-
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?
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3b/Paris_Tuileries_Garden_Facepalm_statue.jpg/300px-Paris_Tuileries_Garden_Facepalm_statue.jpg)
-
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?
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3b/Paris_Tuileries_Garden_Facepalm_statue.jpg/300px-Paris_Tuileries_Garden_Facepalm_statue.jpg)
I guess you don't.
-
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 speaking of anarchy: it might exist courts in an anarchy, but as opposed to the state's courts, the law would have the consent of every adult citizen and there would be no victimless crimes, like 95% of the "crimes" in the state. You could read this, because I'm pretty sure that you never considered how things would work in an anarchy: Ordning och anarki (http://ordningochanarki.blogspot.se/)
And about free guns for protection: Vermont en krigszon? (http://blogg.grevadlux.com/2010/10/vermont-en-krigszon/)
(Sorry you non-Swedish speaking people ;))
-
By the way, odeon, what do you think about the Quick/Bergwall case? Do you think it's an exception? High cops and prosecutors have fabricated most of it. And that's several murders, where the real murderer/s have gotten away with it, because it was so much easier to bust someone who already was a convicted lunatic.
And these swines, the cops and the prosecutors, won't be prosecuted for it either. Prosecutors themselves can't be prosecuted for false prosecution in Sweden, unless it is revealed in court while they are doing it, which will not happen outside the Millenium Trilogy.
Wake up to reality.
-
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?
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3b/Paris_Tuileries_Garden_Facepalm_statue.jpg/300px-Paris_Tuileries_Garden_Facepalm_statue.jpg)
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
By the way, odeon, what do you think about the Quick/Bergwall case? Do you think it's an exception? High cops and prosecutors have fabricated most of it. And that's several murders, where the real murderer/s have gotten away with it, because it was so much easier to bust someone who already was a convicted lunatic.
And these swines, the cops and the prosecutors, won't be prosecuted for it either. Prosecutors themselves can't be prosecuted for false prosecution in Sweden, unless it is revealed in court while they are doing it, which will not happen outside the Millenium Trilogy.
Wake up to reality.
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.
-
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?
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3b/Paris_Tuileries_Garden_Facepalm_statue.jpg/300px-Paris_Tuileries_Garden_Facepalm_statue.jpg)
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.
-
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".
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Still no arguments? Perfectly understandable because it does take more than labelling something as "the truth". Now you are simply deflecting.
-
Average Joe's "normality" definition is what makes 99% of the wrongs in the world persist. It's a true Catch-22.
-
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.
-
:agreed:
-
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.
-
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. :thumbup:
-
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. :thumbup:
Spot on. Like I said: when he doesn't want something in his comfort zone, he resorts to this.
-
I don't think it was out of the comfort zone this time, really.
-
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. :thumbup:
It's interesting how you make this to be about me when all I wanted was an actual argument instead of the sweeping generalisations you started this discussion with. First you avoid including ay kind of argument, then, when asked for one, you say that you won't because I don't but then admit that you actually don't either.
Fucking hell, Schleed, that's kind of like a multi-dimensional strawman.
-
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. :thumbup:
Spot on. Like I said: when he doesn't want something in his comfort zone, he resorts to this.
:yawn:
-
Fucking hell, Schleed, that's kind of like a multi-dimensional strawman.
Suit yourself, think whatever you want to think. I'm not going to go down the long-drawn route that butterflies did. Don't have the patience, and frankly I don't want to entertain you or Les since you two are the main causes of it. I did not want to say it before, but you two along with Callaway are toxic and a burden to i2, and because of this I can't even be civil anymore.
It has nothing to do with this thread before you jump to such a conclusion, otherwise I would have not responded to you in the way I did. I don't need to spell it out my reasons, as they should be obvious.
Now Ari, you can do another snide comment, yawn, roll eyes or try to say whatever bullshit you like. I've said my bit and will go back on topic for others.
-
Fucking hell, Schleed, that's kind of like a multi-dimensional strawman.
Suit yourself, think whatever you want to think. I'm not going to go down the long-drawn route that butterflies did. Don't have the patience, and frankly I don't want to entertain you or Les since you two are the main causes of it. I did not want to say it before, but you two along with Callaway are toxic and a burden to i2, and because of this I can't even be civil anymore.
It has nothing to do with this thread before you jump to such a conclusion, otherwise I would have not responded to you in the way I did. I don't need to spell it out my reasons, as they should be obvious.
Now Ari, you can do another snide comment, yawn, roll eyes or try to say whatever bullshit you like. I've said my bit and will go back on topic for others.
Fucking coward. You just lost whatever respect I had left for you. Not only do you completely lack the skills require to conduct a debate of any kind, the only way you seem to know is to play dirty.
Why not just leave? The few people who tolerate you are not around a lot and if I'm toxic to you you're likely to be poisoned.
-
Wait, what... I'm a coward now? For being honest? :LMAO:
Whatever you say.
-
I think you know perfectly well what I mean. You are an idiot but you are not stupid.
-
Weren't you going back on topic, btw? Fucking lowlife.
-
I think you know perfectly well what I mean. You are an idiot but you are not stupid.
No, I actually don't. Glad I got you riled up, that was incredibly easy.
You don't get it, do you? Do you honestly think I played "dirty" because my debating skills are not up to scratch? If you haven't read between the lines by now, then I may as well spell it out to you:
I dislike you.
Weren't you going back on topic, btw? Fucking lowlife.
You know, I actually changed my mind on that. How about that.
-
I think you know perfectly well what I mean. You are an idiot but you are not stupid.
No, I actually don't. Glad I got you riled up, that was incredibly easy.
You don't get it, do you? Do you honestly think I played "dirty" because my debating skills are not up to scratch? If you haven't read between the lines by now, then I may as well spell it out to you:
I dislike you.
I know. Guess what? I don't really care. I told you a long time ago what I think of you. I have tried to be civil to you, though. Comes with age and experience, all of which you don't have.
And yes. You don't have any real debating skills. You seem to know the strawman but that's the extent of it. You are talented in one area and pretty much one area only, but think you have it in you to do more.
You don't, and life will be oh so cruel to you.
And no, you didn't resort to the lowlife tactics because of the skills you lack. You are simply showing what you are like. Your pictures may be pretty but you are ugly inside. You always were, you always will.
Weren't you going back on topic, btw? Fucking lowlife.
You know, I actually changed my mind on that. How about that.
/shrugs
-
My life has been pretty good so far, but thanks for the concern. Sorry for lacking the ability to argue pointlessly for 30+ threads. :zoinks:
I tried to be civil with you despite my antics, can't do that anymore. Not many people seem to like you either, hence why Dunc etc. left i2. The only enemies I get are either crazy, stupid or manchildren like yourself.
Remember when you asked pea to make you admin on his forum - just to ban me? Real smooth, really just showed how you're partial a bit of the oul' "lowlife tactics" too. :orly:
-
Poor bitter little boy. I'm pleased you admit to your lowlife tactics, though. It would have been pointless to deny it but knowing what you are like, I did expect it.
And please, don't mistake my comments as concern for your well-being. I don't care, I simply observe. but if I'm there to observe your pain, so much the better.
Now off you go, lad. See if the teenie weenies want to play with you.
-
Regarding the original topic, I think mere common sense SHOULD be the best law.
-
Regarding the original topic, I think mere common sense SHOULD be the best law.
Probably difficult to enforce, one way or the other. They'd have to rely on preceding cases. :-\
-
The point is actually that this kind of stuff shouldn't have to be enforced. Everyone knows right from wrong.
-
Well, it seems the definition varies depending on whom you ask.
-
The point is actually that this kind of stuff shouldn't have to be enforced. Everyone knows right from wrong.
I'm not sure everyone *does* know right from wrong. The greater problem is with the many people who
don't care. :(
-
The point is actually that this kind of stuff shouldn't have to be enforced. Everyone knows right from wrong.
Everyone has their own interpretation of what is right or wrong.
-
I'm sick of seeing minorities compete for victim status, and non-minorities scouring their souls for any sign of differences so that they can come up with a new minority label and get their share of the cake. Because sometimes it is cake and not legitimate socioeconomic disadvantage. Besides if there are enough of you to get together in a group and advocate for your group's interest, you're not falling all the way through the cracks and somebody else still is. So hate crime enhancements give the appearance of punishing discrimination without actually solving the problem.
^ This.
-
I'm sick of seeing minorities compete for victim status, and non-minorities scouring their souls for any sign of differences so that they can come up with a new minority label and get their share of the cake. Because sometimes it is cake and not legitimate socioeconomic disadvantage. Besides if there are enough of you to get together in a group and advocate for your group's interest, you're not falling all the way through the cracks and somebody else still is. So hate crime enhancements give the appearance of punishing discrimination without actually solving the problem.
^ This.
I thought you were just looking for trolls :dunno:
-
The point is actually that this kind of stuff shouldn't have to be enforced. Everyone knows right from wrong.
I'm not sure everyone *does* know right from wrong. The greater problem is with the many people who
don't care. :(
That is the problem. Everyone knows its wrong to savagely beat a child for making a bunch of noise in a library or something. Some of the human race seems to just not give a shit though.
I said that the honor system SHOULD work. Didn't say it would. Even the most evil person has that little nagging in tthe back of their mind when they do something funementally wrong. But everyone does something wrong sometimes. Thats why we need some laws I guess.
It just really annoys me that some folks seem to be able to make a very good living coming up with laws all fucking day, every day. I don't see that as necessary.
-
I am racist against the human race.
-
It's clothes. People have only been wearing them 170'000 years. Before this shoplifting was virtually unheard of :zoinks:
nekkid shopping will bring down the crime rate whooo hooo
-
I am racist against the human race.
Preferring cats?
-
I am racist against the human race.
Preferring cats?
Yes. And ducks too. QUACK!
-
It might act o deter race based crimes.
America has a rich history o white people doing whatever the fuckery want to, as long as what they do is to a person of color. It's white entitlement.
Begin to attach harsher sentences to these crimes and whitey might think twice.
Fuck whitey!