All over the western world we see the banner of Jihad, shari'a law, and other repugnant institutions of Islam raised. Even when it goes against the grain, the majority, the culture, and even common decency, our vocal minority invokes the principle of "tolerance" and "diversity" and what everyone else thinks can be damned.

Aside from being totally insane, can someone explain to me what political or philosophical sense does it make to not only "tolerate" but embrace and forcibly integrate things that no one asked for or wants?

:shrug:

All over the western world we see the banner of Jihad, shari'a law, and other repugnant institutions of Islam raised. Even when it goes against the grain, the majority, the culture, and even common decency, our vocal minority invokes the principle of "tolerance" and "diversity" and what everyone else thinks can be damned.

Aside from being totally insane, can someone explain to me what political or philosophical sense does it make to not only "tolerate" but embrace and forcibly integrate things that no one asked for or wants?

:shrug:


These same people didn't voice it for the Western religious fundamentalist, male chauvanist pig who wants to keep his woman barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen. Why is that?

I consider them both one in the same and go after each vehemently with extreme aggression. :P

You know, are they patronizing the Muslim? The Western people should know better, because we're smarter. While the Muslim man, to them, is a "child".

All over the western world we see the banner of Jihad, shari'a law, and other repugnant institutions of Islam raised. Even when it goes against the grain, the majority, the culture, and even common decency, our vocal minority invokes the principle of "tolerance" and "diversity" and what everyone else thinks can be damned.

Aside from being totally insane, can someone explain to me what political or philosophical sense does it make to not only "tolerate" but embrace and forcibly integrate things that no one asked for or wants?

:shrug:

a. "banners of Jihad" are not "all over the western world"

b. You have no idea what everyone or anyone aside from yourself "has asked for " or wants.

We're not the Borg. People make individual decisions. Some choose to be Muslim, some choose not to be Muslim but still associate and socialize with Muslims. Some choose to be Christian. Some choose not to be Christian but to marry Christians. And so on and so on. You have decided for yourself that you hate all things Islamic and want nothing to do with any Muslims. That's fine, I guarantee there are plenty of places in the US where you can go and never have to see another Muslim as long as you live. But for the rest of society, the point is for us to try and balance the individual predilections of human contact with the institutions of control built into every society on earth: law and government. Insitutionalizing discrimination against any one group tends to contravene those goals in favor of collectivism and statism over indivudal freedom. Most of us don't want to be told what cultures and groups we can or can't associate with. Despite your claim to be speaking for the people, you're actually doing just the opposite. You want to prohibit people from having contact with Muslims. They can do that if they choose, but it shouldn't be a government mandate. In fact, since people like you are around to incite prejudice and hatred, they are forced to mandate the other way, so people are allowed to socialize with whomever they please.

Yours is the same prinicple that has Osama bin Laden and his band of nuts bombing Muslim targets because they are "consorting" with Westerners. You're two sides of the same coin.

a. "banners of Jihad" are not "all over the western world"

b. You have no idea what everyone or anyone aside from yourself "has asked for " or wants.

We're not the Borg. People make individual decisions. Some choose to be Muslim, some choose not to be Muslim but still associate and socialize with Muslims. Some choose to be Christian. Some choose not to be Christian but to marry Christians. And so on and so on. You have decided for yourself that you hate all things Islamic and want nothing to do with any Muslims. That's fine, I guarantee there are plenty of places in the US where you can go and never have to see another Muslim as long as you live. But for the rest of society, the point is for us to try and balance the individual predilections of human contact with the institutions of control built into every society on earth: law and government. Insitutionalizing discrimination against any one group tends to contravene those goals in favor of collectivism and statism over indivudal freedom. Most of us don't want to be told what cultures and groups we can or can't associate with. Despite your claim to be speaking for the people, you're actually doing just the opposite. You want to prohibit people from having contact with Muslims. They can do that if they choose, but it shouldn't be a government mandate. In fact, since people like you are around to incite prejudice and hatred, they are forced to mandate the other way, so people are allowed to socialize with whomever they please.

Yours is the same prinicple that has Osama bin Laden and his band of nuts bombing Muslim targets because they are "consorting" with Westerners. You're two sides of the same coin.excuse me but are there anti hate laws against christians? of course not. Is it heresy to discuss mass muslim migration into Europe? you bet.

I want to know why this volatile group is being protected at all costs.

Right on Ras! Diversity and tolerance does not mean accepting anything that is outside our laws. It may mean accepting a way of behaving that we don't feel comfortable with

excuse me but are there anti hate laws against christians? of course not. Is it heresy to discuss mass muslim migration into Europe? you bet.

I want to know why this volatile group is being protected at all costs.

If they break the laws of the country they live in they should not be protected, and I don't think they are. If they speak publically for violence in England, now, or soon if Parliament agrees with Blair,then they will not be protected. People's cultural norms must be protected by a democratic society as long as those norms do not break any laws! Why did the Pilgrims come here in the first place? Because there religious norms were being persecuted against by the Brits.

excuse me but are there anti hate laws against christians? of course not. Is it heresy to discuss mass muslim migration into Europe? you bet.

I want to know why this volatile group is being protected at all costs.

I agree that a good argument can be made against "hate-crime" legislation, but I look at it like this: motivation does count for something. A strong man can rape a woman and leave hardly a mark on her, but a guy can beat another dude bloody, and which is worse? To me rape is worse because it shows a serious pathology on the part of the rapist: they're aroused by preying on the weak.

People who commit racially motivated crimes are almost mentally ill, in my opinion, because they apparently can't distinguish betwen individuals within subgroups. When I was kid we used to buy weed from this crazy vietnam vet named Bobby Lee. He lived out in the boonies and pretty much couldn't go into town because he'd flip out whenever he saw an asian person. I don't know his whole story, but obviously whatever happened to him in 'Nam affected him pretty seriously. Despite having sympathy for his experience, most in society agree that someone like Bobby Lee is "a little off" because no matter what happened in Vietnam, it wasn't the fault of any asians here in the states.

by the same token, someone who attacks a Muslim because anothe Muslim commits an act of terrorism is beyond stupid: they're a danger to society. Because there ARE many peaceful Muslims who don't commit acts of terror. They have a right to not feel endangered just because another Muslim- even it is a neighbor who attends the same Mosque- does something very bad.

I do believe that hate crimes shold apply equally: blacks who commit crimes against peole just because the're white shold be prosecuted under hate crimes and so on and so forth. But I think most people don't really dispute that, even the majority who support hate-crime legislation.

The ACLU has defende Christian groups many times, and there's other examples. You're just extrapolating a literal culture "war" where there reall isn't one. This is the 21st century. Cash rules everything around us. There is still cultural tension and conflict, but our goal should be to ameliorate it and discourage those would inflame the tension.

'Hate crime' legislation is bad news.

Once again, Orwell was on to something. 'Thought Crimes', the Thought Police, etc.

'Hate crime' legislation is bad news.

Once again, Orwell was on to something. 'Thought Crimes', the Thought Police, etc.

So rapists should only be charged with minor assault commensurate to the amount of physical damage they inflict, right? if a rapist wears a condom and doesn't leave any bruises on his victim he shouldn't be charged with anything more than what he'd be charged with if he had shoved a stranger on the street?

Aside from being totally insane, can someone explain to me what political or philosophical sense does it make to not only "tolerate" but embrace and forcibly integrate things that no one asked for or wants?


You are basically asking what the psychology of leftism is.

So rapists should only be charged with minor assault commensurate to the amount of physical damage they inflict, right? if a rapist wears a condom and doesn't leave any bruises on his victim he shouldn't be charged with anything more than what he'd be charged with if he had shoved a stranger on the street?

There already are laws on the books against rape, murder, assault, etc, etc.

Hate crime legislation is punishing people for a thought, or belief. People have the right to believe what they want. As abhorrent as I find certain beliefs to be, I don't want the Thought Police to go around punishing people for their beliefs. Why, because as we all know, anyone could be next. There are already places that have considered the Bible to be 'hate speech'... so you can see where that Orwellian type of legislation can lead to.

If they break the laws of the country they live in they should not be protected, and I don't think they are. If they speak publically for violence in England, now, or soon if Parliament agrees with Blair,then they will not be protected. People's cultural norms must be protected by a democratic society as long as those norms do not break any laws! Why did the Pilgrims come here in the first place? Because there religious norms were being persecuted against by the Brits. :bowrofl: :rofl: :rofl:

www.jihadwatch.org

Note the almost DAILY proclamations of Jihad and effigy burning.

There already are laws on the books against rape, murder, assault, etc, etc.



That wasn't my question. WHY is there a law against rape? isn't it just a simple act of physical aggression, like pushing or slapping someone?

You are basically asking what the psychology of leftism is.they belong to one of those kool aid cults :shrug:

Man, thumper, you had me fooled...I almost thought you were actually interested in serious discussion this time.

"Hate" crimes are just an extension of the legal principal of determining a defendants' motive, state of mind and intent when determining innocence or guilt ... all of which soley reside in the mind of the defendant .

There is no law against hating anyone or any race ... but racial hatred is factored in the larger context of motive when a personal or property crime is commited

Hate crimes differ from "Thought" crimes .. which are condemnation of beliefs as a result of judicial moralism The expression "thought crime" began in the context of totalitarian political moralism ... but this idea is as old as the concept of heresy ...

The worst edict that can possibly be imagined...An edict that permits liberty of conscience, the worst thing in the world.

Pope Clement VIII on the Edict of Nantes, 1598, by which King Henry IV of France declared that French Protestants, the Huguenots, were (mostly) free to practice their religion. Revoked by King Louis XIV in 1685.

That wasn't my question. WHY is there a law against rape? isn't it just a simple act of physical aggression, like pushing or slapping someone?You do realize that by supporting state sponsored Islamicization of the West, that your humanist goals of "rights" for everyone becomes a joke, right?

That wasn't my question. WHY is there a law against rape? isn't it just a simple act of physical aggression, like pushing or slapping someone?


You can't be serious? So if a guy sodomizes you against your will, it's the same act as if he smacks you around a bit?

serious question for Ras: Why is so important to you that Europe become an Islamic state?

To "tolerate" something automatically denotes that it is something you either disagree with, or don't fully agree with/ approve of, or it's something or someone that annoys/bothers you in some way. We can tolerate a barking dog next door, but we don't like it. Tolerance is not embracing or approving of anything. If we like something or someone, there's no need to "tolerate", because we already embrace it in the first place.

Words are so misused these days it's ridiculous. I hear the word "racism" thrown around all of the time, yet it's almost always used in the context of "prejudice".

Hitler was a racist. He believed that only one race was acceptable, or even fully human. That's true racism. Nowadys, if a person makes an assumptiom based on race or racial stereotypes, they're tagged as racists. It's ridiculous. They may be prejudiced, but have no belief whatsoever that there is a "master race".

As far as diversity goes, I for one am getting really sick and tired of hearing that "our divesrsity is what makes us great". No it's not, not at all. The FREEDOM and LIBERTY to choose and be what we want makes us great, regardless of ethnicity. The Soviets had an extremely diverse culture, and they imploded in every imaginable way, because they had no freedom, nor the incentive to achieve anything, because there was no rewared for their efforts.

All of this tolerance and diversity talk is nothing but political doublespeak (primarily from the left), and most of it means absolutely nothing, and isn't based on anything remotely close to reality.

You can't be serious? So if a guy sodomizes you against your will, it's the same act as if he smacks you around a bit?

I never said it was, so stop trying to dodge the question.

Of course its different: WHY is it different?

To "tolerate" something automatically denotes that it is something you either disagree with, or don't fully agree with/ approve of, or it's something or someone that annoys/bothers you in some way. We can tolerate a barking dog next door, but we don't like it. Tolerance is not embracing or approving of anything. If we like something or someone, there's no need to "tolerate", because we already embrace it in the first place.

Words are so misused these days it's ridiculous. I hear the word "racism" thrown around all of the time, yet it's almost always used in the context of "prejudice".

Hitler was a racist. He believed that only one race was acceptable, or even fully human. That's true racism. Nowadys, if a person makes an assumptiom based on race or racial stereotypes, they're tagged as racists. It's ridiculous. They may be prejudiced, but have no belief whatsoever that there is a "master race".

As far as diversity goes, I for one am getting really sick and tired of hearing that "our divesrsity is what makes us great". No it's not, not at all. The FREEDOM and LIBERTY to choose and be what we want makes us great, regardless of ethnicity. The Soviets had an extremely diverse culture, and they imploded in every imaginable way, because they had no freedom, nor the incentive to achieve anything, because there was no rewared for their efforts.

All of this tolerance and diversity talk is nothing but political doublespeak (primarily from the left), and most of it means absolutely nothing, and isn't based on anything remotely close to reality. :nice:

That wasn't my question. WHY is there a law against rape? isn't it just a simple act of physical aggression, like pushing or slapping someone?

Sorry.. I had to babysit my 11 month old niece for a bit... didn't mean to run away. :p

I never said that all crimes were equal, if that's what you thought... yes, rape is an especially horrible crime. And obviously it's illegal because it's a violation of another person's rights, and it can be particularly dangerous because of diseases that can be passed, which means it could actually kill a person... But imo a certain belief or thought in the person's head shouldn't be an additional crime, because as I said, people are free to believe what they want, it is when it turns to agression/action against another person's rights that is the issue.

And obviously it's illegal because it's a violation of another person's rights

But any physical crime is a violation of someone's rights. Why is rape worse than shoving or kicking someone? And don't fall back onto the disease bit; what if the rapist wears a condom? What if they have a physical exam, are found to be 100% healthy, and go rape a woman? is that the same as a simple minor assault?

you know what I'm getting at, BC. A person's motivations do play a factor in how we perceive the severity of their crime. You just seem to think that it shouldn't matter if it's racially motivated rather than sexually motivated. I don't see what the difference is. A person who commits a crime for pathological reasons- whether racial hatred or gender hatred- is more dangerous than someone who loses their temper and slugs someone in a bar.

'Hate crime' legislation is bad news.

Once again, Orwell was on to something. 'Thought Crimes', the Thought Police, etc.

Exactly. If somebody's stabbing me, the pain is the same whether the psycho is black or white, straight or gay, etc. And I'm not particularily concerned whether he hates me because of my skin color, race, sex, religion, whatever or he caught me flirting with his girl, the end result is the same. Are we going to give harsher sentences for black-on-white or white-on-black crime than white-on-white or black-on-black? Equal protection my arse. Proponents better be careful what they wish for. They just might get it.

And now they want to apply "hate crimes" (read thought crimes) to speech. Preacher speaks out against homosexuality, lock him up. But it's OK to spew hatred at a conservative Christian. As we say, "Free speech for thee, not for me."

So if there was some group roaming the streets of San Jose publicly targeting any white conservative men they saw on the streets for acts of violence, you wouldn't lose any peace of mind, CCC?

So if there was some group roaming the streets of San Jose publicly targeting any white conservative men they saw on the streets for acts of violence, you wouldn't lose any peace of mind, CCC?

I wouldn't feel comfortable with ANY group targeting ANY other group for acts of violence in the streets of San Jose. My feelings are irrelevant. My concern is for ALL of humanity.

And your rape query is asinine. Get back to me after you get butt-raped and ask that question to Buttercup again.

Later.

Peace.

"Diversity" is a racket that Jews have peddled non-stop since they bought out our, the USA's, government.

The intent of diversity is merely to weaken all white power structures, since Jews have always hidden their power structure outside of the white one. Then they abuse the media, totally recreating history. The Jews are the friends of the minorities.... right. That's why if you were to look up slavery in the encyclopedia, you should see a Jew with several slaves. Jews were so ridiculously overrepresented in the slave trade that it is boggling the subject barely touched on, even at the highest levels of academic study -- for good reason. Jews control those too, directly or via proxy.

But any physical crime is a violation of someone's rights. Why is rape worse than shoving or kicking someone? And don't fall back onto the disease bit; what if the rapist wears a condom? What if they have a physical exam, are found to be 100% healthy, and go rape a woman? is that the same as a simple minor assault?

you know what I'm getting at, BC. A person's motivations do play a factor in how we perceive the severity of their crime. You just seem to think that it shouldn't matter if it's racially motivated rather than sexually motivated. I don't see what the difference is. A person who commits a crime for pathological reasons- whether racial hatred or gender hatred- is more dangerous than someone who loses their temper and slugs someone in a bar.


That's actually a very good question. This may sound strange, but imo obviously the fact it is worse than other crimes such as assault shows that the act of intercourse is something very different than other physical acts. There's not even a comparison... it's something so intimate and it's supposed to be with a person we love and choose to be with... obviously rape takes away someone's free will, and it takes something away from that person, something they think they can never get back... again, it's just not in the same category as assault.

Your question probably could've gone on a new thread. :) It is an interesting question. But again, I don't think a person who (in addition to committing a crime such as rape or murder or assault) should get additional punishment for any thought that was in his head. People commit crimes for all different reasons... the crime is the crime, not the thought, imo.

edit: i think i lost part of my reply there somehow...

My feelings are irrelevant.


No they're not! As a member of society you are entitled to feel just as safe as any other person, and someone targeting you just because of the color of your skin or your religion robs you of that feeling. As they say: "a sense of security is like air- you take it for granted until the second it's gone, then it becomes the most important thing in the world."

Muslim/black/jewish/whatever schoolkids shouldn't have to feel less safe walking home from school just because they're muslim/black/jewish/whatever. People who commit racially-motivated crimes and therefore cause them to feel less safe deserve to be punished for it.



And your rape query is asinine. Get back to me after you get butt-raped and ask that question to Buttercup again.




:rolleyes: Grow up. I didn't direct anything to buttercup personally, I asked the same question to several men. The question and the point behind it still stand.

Secondarily, and perhaps why many Jews always push such agendas, they are usually trying to weaken all laws related to immigration in any country they reside in. Jews have this history of getting themselves into a lot of trouble, and then running off to some other country when they have to answer for their deeds. If countries have pathetic immigration standards, it's easy for connected Jews to slip in and out of them.

You run out of new shtick pretty quick, ernie.

you know I also like hispanic people and aboriginal midgets, if you'd care to follow me around the board and try to bait me by making comments about those groups also :rolleyes: just in case you're getting bored

All of this tolerance and diversity talk is nothing but political doublespeak (primarily from the left), and most of it means absolutely nothing, and isn't based on anything remotely close to reality.

Actually is it totally from the left. As you suggested, the poltically correct buzzwords are designed to evoke an emotional reaction, not a rational reaction. The politically correct left wing liberals want conformity in thought to trigger the knee jerk responses to the buzzwords. It is ironic that ones who use the vocabulary of the politically correct use "tolerant" and encourage "diversity" while they attack the foundations of Western Civilization.

The use of these PC buzzwords functions to preempt issues rather than debate them, and give the illusion that PC leftists are on the higher moral ground.

These same people didn't voice it for the Western religious fundamentalist, male chauvanist pig who wants to keep his woman barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen. Why is that?

I consider them both one in the same and go after each vehemently with extreme aggression. :P

I happened to have liked being pregnant and in the kitchen except for the bum I married was too weak to turn from all the free ass in the hippy streets ! I was lucky he was cured of all their deseases by time babies were born . I heard alot of woman were given crabs,gnnorea,syplis herpes and other femminist infections . I'd rather be pregnant,barefooted and cooking ! I found a good man to help me raise scummys kids and scummy finally found VD he couldn't shake . :eek7:

"Diversity" is a racket that Jews have peddled non-stop since they bought out our, the USA's, government.

The intent of diversity is merely to weaken all white power structures, since Jews have always hidden their power structure outside of the white one. Then they abuse the media, totally recreating history. The Jews are the friends of the minorities.... right. That's why if you were to look up slavery in the encyclopedia, you should see a Jew with several slaves. Jews were so ridiculously overrepresented in the slave trade that it is boggling the subject barely touched on, even at the highest levels of academic study -- for good reason. Jews control those too, directly or via proxy.Good analysis, but I don't neccessarily think Jews are behind it all.

In fact, the zionists have sold them out on many occasions :o

www.jewsagainstzionism.com

All over the western world we see the banner of Jihad, shari'a law, and other repugnant institutions of Islam raised. Even when it goes against the grain, the majority, the culture, and even common decency, our vocal minority invokes the principle of "tolerance" and "diversity" and what everyone else thinks can be damned.

Aside from being totally insane, can someone explain to me what political or philosophical sense does it make to not only "tolerate" but embrace and forcibly integrate things that no one asked for or wants?

:shrug:

Maybe the answer to this question is what separates the Western world in 2005 from its former selves in 1492 (Inquisition) 1600s( Protestant vs Catholic) and 1800s ("scientific" racism gone wild). Change is painful... Change is rocky. But change...ultimately triumphs.

Maybe the answer to this question is what separates the Western world in 2005 from its former selves in 1492 (Inquisition) 1600s( Protestant vs Catholic) and 1800s ("scientific" racism gone wild). Change is painful... Change is rocky. But change...ultimately triumphs.thanks for the non-answer

I guess that blackranger is using the PC buzzword "change" to imply that a seething underlying hatred for the Western World is justified and decisions must be made to ultimately "change" it; which means of course to undermine it ACLU-style. The reality is that "change" is a perfect example of a word being used to preempt debate on the issues. Everyone is for "change," the problem is that various demographics have different ideas as to what they want to change.

For example, the invaders from Mexico want to change America to conform to them. Meanwhile, rational American citizens want to change it back to America.

No they're not! As a member of society you are entitled to feel just as safe as any other person, and someone targeting you just because of the color of your skin or your religion robs you of that feeling. As they say: "a sense of security is like air- you take it for granted until the second it's gone, then it becomes the most important thing in the world."


Absolutely right.
It is so disappointing to see so many people appealing to Orwellian scaremongering, speaking of 'thought crimes' and the like. Justice has always taken into account the psychology of the crime when meting out punishment.

I think the core factor at play here is once again a lack of empathy. People simply refuse to understand that racially motivated crime is akin to terrorism. Indeed, the earliest organized perpetrators of it in America were terrorists, pure and simple (the Klan).
I don't see anyone having a problem for punishing terrorists more severely than others... why the double standard?

The lack of empathy seems to come from a group of people whose political outlook chronically displays a similar lack in other situations.

Ras, your attempt to give an example closer to home, that they might perhaps understand, was a good try.

Buttercup, if your husband hits you once, after ten years of marriage, in truly extreme circumstances and regrets it terribly as soon as the act is done, should he receive the same punishment as someone who openly professes to hate women, and who beats you while saying: 'this'll teach you women to remember your place'?

I'm not saying that these questions don't introduce complexities to the judicial process - pit falls and unique challenges... but the arguments against considering them are simply piss weak.


Muslim/black/jewish/whatever schoolkids shouldn't have to feel less safe walking home from school just because they're muslim/black/jewish/whatever. People who commit racially-motivated crimes and therefore cause them to feel less safe deserve to be punished for it.


Precisely.

I wouldn't feel comfortable with ANY group targeting ANY other group for acts of violence in the streets of San Jose. My feelings are irrelevant. My concern is for ALL of humanity.


I'm glad you are concerned for all humanity, but that's quite irrelevant to the core questions here. Racial violence is a particularly corrosive form of violence for the fabric of society. You'd think Americans would have gotten that by now, considering our history, for crying out loud :) It does damage beyond the physical, and it begets violence beyond the scale of one human hurting one other human. When a person of a certain ethnicity hurts a person of another ethnicity specifically because of that ethnicity, it runs the risk of fanning the flames of ethnic hatred, which is a far bigger arena than interpersonal aggression.

What are the painful experiences of history worth if we don't learn from them? Y'all just get me down sometimes.


And your rape query is asinine. Get back to me after you get butt-raped and ask that question to Buttercup again.


The roll-eyes smiley seemed strangely ineffectual to express my reaction to that one.

Secondarily, and perhaps why many Jews always push such agendas, they are usually trying to weaken all laws related to immigration in any country they reside in. Jews have this history of getting themselves into a lot of trouble, and then running off to some other country when they have to answer for their deeds. If countries have pathetic immigration standards, it's easy for connected Jews to slip in and out of them.

Erhnam, have you heard the latest? The Jews are out of fashion: people in the know are now blaming collector's of antique furniture for the global conspiracy to 'do shady things any good white person should abhor'. Get with the program!

M.

That's actually a very good question.

The ones we take for granted usually are.

This may sound strange, but imo obviously the fact it is worse than other crimes such as assault shows that the act of intercourse is something very different than other physical acts.

The only reason it sounds strange is because apparently you believe rape to be an act of intercourse. It is not. Note the "inter-" part of that word, implying between two people.

There's not even a comparison... it's something so intimate and it's supposed to be with a person we love and choose to be with...

Wait a minute...love? How do we know that the rapist doesn't love their victim? What are you, the thought police? You have no right to "read the mind" of a rapist and determine whether or not they love their victim. Perhaps a man had been dating a woman for months and she simply wouldn't accept his "love", so he had to force it on her. You'd have to "police" the rapist's "thoughts" to know for sure, wouldn't you?

Or rather, as I believe, is it that there is no real "thought" involved in an act of rape? Just as there is no "thought" involved in racially-motivated attacks. That is why your claims of "thought crime" are intellectually dishonest. Blind hatred does not equal thought. Setting fire to a black Christian church or firebombing a synagogue does not imply a complicated set of thought processes which we are "best not to judge".

It is pathological hatred which impels such acts and you know it, and that is what separates it from other types of crime.



Your question probably could've gone on a new thread. :) It is an interesting question.


It's perfectly on-topic, because although we tend not to think of it as such, rape is very much a "hate crime". The sick bastards who commit it hate women- to the rapist they are nothing but objects of weakness to be dominated by men.

Rape is not in any way a sexual act. It is an act of violence which happens to sexually arouse the offender. The fact is that it is only the idea behind the physical act which makes it worse than simple assault- and of course we all agree that it is.

But again, I don't think a person who (in addition to committing a crime such as rape or murder or assault) should get additional punishment for any thought that was in his head.

That doesn't make any sense- if it weren't for the "thoughts" in their head then rapists wouldn't be considered to be committing "rape" to begin with- it would be indistinguishable from any other kind of physical assault. If it weren't for our judgement of those "thoughts" of the rapist to be on par with a kind of mental illness, then we would regard them the same as someone who starts a simple street fight.

^ Ras, I wasn't talking about date rape or rape between two people in a relationship... I was talking about the kind of rape that usually comes to mind when we think of 'rape' - a stranger brutally attacking someone and forcing himself on the victim.

And you misunderstood what I was trying to say anyway... but I'm not sure I can rephrase it right now. I'll answer you point for point later.

Pappy, Snouter, Thumper, Ernie -

nevermind. my response would violate the TOS.

^ Ras, I wasn't talking about date rape or rape between two people in a relationship... I was talking about the kind of rape that usually comes to mind when we think of 'rape' - a stranger brutally attacking someone and forcing himself on the victim.


I don't distinguish much between the two- in fact it would seem that so-called "date rape" could be viewed as the far more insidious and evil of the two, as it also involves an abhorrent betrayal of trust. But that's beside the point: either way they are both crimes which inarguably far exceed any other sort of physical assault, and that is because of the motivation behind them. A rapist is someone with a pathological hatred towards an entire segment of society which he doesn't even know: women. The same principle applies to those who commit crimes of racial or religious hatred.

I don't think I misunderstod you at all. I think you just don't want to admit that I have valid point.

Pappy, Snouter, Thumper, Ernie -

nevermind. my response would violate the TOS.

:)

:nice:

M.

The only reason it sounds strange is because apparently you believe rape to be an act of intercourse. It is not. Note the "inter-" part of that word, implying between two people.

No, I didn't say that, and that's not what I think. What I was trying to say was that it is not the same as a simple act of assault because the physical act that is happening is something that is not any ordinary physical act. You misunderstood me, and assumed that I was saying rape is intercourse... no, what I'm saying is that it takes something that is supposed to be positive, and with someone you want to be with... and twists it into something horrible. It takes something that is supposed to be one of the most intimate things, and turns it into something completely different. I'm not sure if i'm making sense here...


Wait a minute...love? How do we know that the rapist doesn't love their victim? What are you, the thought police? You have no right to "read the mind" of a rapist and determine whether or not they love their victim. Perhaps a man had been dating a woman for months and she simply wouldn't accept his "love", so he had to force it on her. You'd have to "police" the rapist's "thoughts" to know for sure, wouldn't you?

See my response in my previous reply. I was talking about rape by a stranger. And besides, the point I was trying to make was what I just finished saying... it twists an act that is supposed to be loving and intimate, into something else entirely.


Or rather, as I believe, is it that there is no real "thought" involved in an act of rape? Just as there is no "thought" involved in racially-motivated attacks. That is why your claims of "thought crime" are intellectually dishonest. Blind hatred does not equal thought. Setting fire to a black Christian church or firebombing a synagogue does not imply a complicated set of thought processes which we are "best not to judge".

The issue is - did he force himself on someone who did not consent? Yes or no? Did he take away someone's free will and violate that person's rights? If it was not consensual, if it was forcing himself on someone, then it is rape.

He could be thinking about the price of rice in China, his thoughts are not the crime, the crime is forcing himself on someone, brutally attacking and violating another person's rights.


It is pathological hatred which impels such acts and you know it, and that is what separates it from other types of crime.

It may be hatred, or it may be just a callous disregard for another human being, or it may be any number of things. The crime is when he agresses against another person - unless you want to outlaw the emotion of hatred altogether? Do you see how silly that is?


It's perfectly on-topic, because although we tend not to think of it as such, rape is very much a "hate crime". The sick bastards who commit it hate women- to the rapist they are nothing but objects of weakness to be dominated by men.

Again, whether he hates the woman or not isn't the issue, the issue is that he trespassed and agressed against another person. Hate might not have anything to do with it, but even if it does...he is being punished for the crime of rape... unless we are going to start outlawing certain emotions?


Rape is not in any way a sexual act. It is an act of violence which happens to sexually arouse the offender.

I'm not disputing that.


The fact is that it is only the idea behind the physical act which makes it worse than simple assault- and of course we all agree that it is.

I don't quite agree. A person who assaults someone can hate that victim just as much or even more than a rapist raping someone. So that isn't what makes rape worse.



That doesn't make any sense- if it weren't for the "thoughts" in their head then rapists wouldn't be considered to be committing "rape" to begin with- it would be indistinguishable from any other kind of physical assault. If it weren't for our judgement of those "thoughts" of the rapist to be on par with a kind of mental illness, then we would regard them the same as someone who starts a simple street fight.

No, you aren't making much sense there! Rape is a specific crime... Or a sexual assault, is not the same thing as an ordinary assault. The thoughts in the rapists or sexual offenders head is not what makes it unique... it is the act, it is an especially extreme violation of another human being. More so than just punching them in the arm. I'm not sure if i've explained myself on this very well. I just don't agree with your 'it's the thought' argument. Hate, or any other emotion can go along with any crime... murder, assault, theft, whatever. Unless we are going to outlaw certain thoughts.... the way it has always been is that a person is punished for the crime, not the thoughts.

it twists an act that is supposed to be loving and intimate, into something else entirely.


And what does it do if I burn down a church because I hate Christians? Facilitate a thoughtful dialogue between disparate groups? Just another rowdy night on the town?

Is there a difference between someone who burns down their own grocery store for insurance money and someone who burns down a Christian school because they hate Christians?






The issue is - did he force himself on someone who did not consent? Yes or no? Did he take away someone's free will and violate that person's rights? If it was not consensual, if it was forcing himself on someone, then it is rape.


We're not disputing what rape is. Of course it violates free will and takes away rights- just as some white supremacist lunatic throwing a beer bottle at a black kid walking home from school violates that child's right.

If some big dude busts a bottle over my head because I stared him down and whistled at his girlfriend, I would want him to be punished.

If some dude throws a bottle at a 12 year-old black kid (and this has happened) just because that kid is black, then I would want to see them SEVERELY punished, and yes I do distinguish between the two acts and see the later as far worse than the former.






Again, whether he hates the woman or not isn't the issue, the issue is that he trespassed and agressed against another person. Hate might not have anything to do with it, but even if it does...he is being punished for the crime of rape... unless we are going to start outlawing certain emotions?


Hate crime legislation has nothing to do with emotion, unless the emotion manifests itself in the form of a crime.

It's not illegal to think about robbing a bank is it? Yet someone has to think about robbing a bank before they do it- does that make the illegality of robbing banks an act of the "thought police"?






I don't quite agree. A person who assaults someone can hate that victim just as much or even more than a rapist raping someone. So that isn't what makes it worse than rape.


but someone who hates a specific person for a specific reason- like the guy busting a bottle over my head for whistling at his girl- is STILL less dangerous than someone who hates an entire group of people simply for existing- like the guy who enjoys throwing bottles at black kids, or the rapist who hates women.

There's a difference and you know it.







No, you're not making much sense there! Rape is a specific crime... Or a sexual assault, is not the same thing as an ordinary assault. The thoughts in the rapists or sexual offenders head is not what makes it unique...

If that's not what makes rape unique then you still haven't explained what does. As a matter of pure physics, rape should be no different than me kicking someone in the ass. It is only the idea and motivation behind it which changes things.

it is the act, it is an especially extreme violation of another human being.

Unlike a gang of skinheads beating a Muslim man walking down the street for no reason?...yeah, no violation of rights there! :rolleyes:

Unless we are going to outlaw certain thoughts.... the way it has always been is that a person is punished for the crime, not the thoughts.

A person's thoughts have always played role in determining what exactly their crime is under the letter of the law. Criminal prosecution is not a matter of physics. Why do you think insane people go to mental wards rather than prison?

And what does it do if I burn down a church because I hate Christians? Facilitate a thoughtful dialogue between disparate groups? Just another rowdy night on the town?

Is there a difference between someone who burns down their own grocery store for insurance money and someone who burns down a Christian school because they hate Christians?

You can't always know what is going on in a person's mind. You can't always prove what they were thinking. But again, my point has been, the emotion or thought - as horrible as it is, is not the crime. The crime is the action.

In a perfect world, I would agree with you on hate crime legislation. But I don't believe it is being pushed for noble reasons. When it becomes illegal for a pastor to preach that homosexuality is wrong (which is what the Bible says) because they'll put it in the category of 'hate speech', then maybe you'll begin to see what I'm trying to say. That has already been happening, btw, I think it happened in the Netherlands, or some other country.

I think it is just another way to restrict certain freedoms that we take for granted. These things happen slowly...chipping away, and sometimes it is cloaked in a way that looks good at first glance. Any decent person would agree that racism, sexism, hate, etc... are wrong, and terrible. But, as you know, freedom of speech/thought is something that should be protected, even if we personally find it abhorrent. It is when it turns to action against someone - that is the crime.


Hate crime legislation has nothing to do with emotion, unless the emotion manifests itself in the form of a crime.

The crime is the manifestation, the action! Thoughts or emotions shouldn't be outlawed!


It's not illegal to think about robbing a bank is it? Yet someone has to think about robbing a bank before they do it- does that make the illegality of robbing banks an act of the "thought police"?

No, because what is being punished is the act of robbing the bank. Not the thought.


but someone who hates a specific person for a specific reason- like the guy busting a bottle over my head for whistling at his girl- is STILL less dangerous than someone who hates an entire group of people simply for existing- like the guy who enjoys throwing bottles at black kids, or the rapist who hates women.

There's a difference and you know it.

There probably are many people who are racist who do not act on it by assaulting or killing people. And there may be criminals who assault, rape or kill people... who aren't motivated by racism, but simply because they're screwed up in the head, or are morally bankrupt, or whatever. But regardless, the point still stands that it's the action that is being punished. Don't get me wrong though... I agree with you that those crimes are particularly sick and ugly. I just don't agree with outlawing thoughts or emotions.


If that's not what makes rape unique then you still haven't explained what does. As a matter of pure physics, rape should be no different than me kicking someone in the ass. It is only the idea and motivation behind it which changes things.

I sort of alluded to it. Maybe I'll try to find an article on this, (if one exists) because i'm not sure if I was able to get the point across... i'll get back to this one.


A person's thoughts have always played role in determining what exactly their crime is under the letter of the law. Criminal prosecution is not a matter of physics. Why do you think insane people go to mental wards rather than prison?

I didn't say that a person's mental state has nothing at all to do with it. But there are numerous reasons why people commit crimes. Do you really think that hate or certain other thoughts should be illegal? Because that's what hate crime legislation does -- it adds an additional punishment for certain things. It's not a road we should be going down... Orwell could forsee a future where certain thoughts were a crime. It's totalitarian, or it's heading in that direction.

edit: not a great reply, but it's getting late! :)

I'll make this short and sweet since I'm not really part of the conversation and it'll probably not get responded to.

The racial hatred isn't the crime. If it were, you could arrest someone merely for saying they hate your kind. So Buttercup, if you are at all listening, Hate Crime legislation has nothing to do with Orwell's depictions of a future in which mere thoughts are crimes.

No, present day Hate Crimes are first of all crimes like any other: assault, murder, arson, etc... with the added dimension of racial hatred.

M.

Pappy, Snouter, Thumper, Ernie -

nevermind. my response would violate the TOS.

Now that you have dealt with the "emotional" reaction, let the rational part of the mind help develop a response to the individuals you mention in the context of the TOS.

I'll make this short and sweet since I'm not really part of the conversation and it'll probably not get responded to.

:bs:

The racial hatred isn't the crime.... present day Hate Crimes are first of all crimes like any other: assault, murder, arson, etc... with the added dimension of racial hatred.

:confused: Why would the emotional dimension of a crime have any relevence especially since it is normally used by liberal lawyers to seek lesser charges?

Ras, do you see a trend here? As this 'champion of humanity' you claim to be where you forcibly integrate one antagonistic group onto another (in this case Jihadists into the West) to create the much vaunted 'multi-culturalism' something of a police state is almost neccessary to monitor our thoughts and actions (and in the case of the UK, a National ID card) just so violence doesn't spill into the streets.

Why do this again?

Thumper, you keep putting my name in your mouth, but whatever you're talking about has absolutely nothing to do with anything I've said. I wasted twenty minutes typing a response to you only to be met with "why do you want to turn europe into a muslim blah blah blah"

So in case you haven't got the hint, I'm going to go back to ignoring you now. Thanks anyway.

http://pichold.com/Images/Smilies/wiggle.gif

To "tolerate" something automatically denotes that it is something you either disagree with, or don't fully agree with/ approve of, or it's something or someone that annoys/bothers you in some way. We can tolerate a barking dog next door, but we don't like it. Tolerance is not embracing or approving of anything. If we like something or someone, there's no need to "tolerate", because we already embrace it in the first place.

Words are so misused these days it's ridiculous. I hear the word "racism" thrown around all of the time, yet it's almost always used in the context of "prejudice".

Hitler was a racist. He believed that only one race was acceptable, or even fully human. That's true racism. Nowadys, if a person makes an assumptiom based on race or racial stereotypes, they're tagged as racists. It's ridiculous. They may be prejudiced, but have no belief whatsoever that there is a "master race".

As far as diversity goes, I for one am getting really sick and tired of hearing that "our divesrsity is what makes us great". No it's not, not at all. The FREEDOM and LIBERTY to choose and be what we want makes us great, regardless of ethnicity. The Soviets had an extremely diverse culture, and they imploded in every imaginable way, because they had no freedom, nor the incentive to achieve anything, because there was no rewared for their efforts.

All of this tolerance and diversity talk is nothing but political doublespeak (primarily from the left), and most of it means absolutely nothing, and isn't based on anything remotely close to reality.

I Agree. Good stuff

Actually is it totally from the left. As you suggested, the poltically correct buzzwords are designed to evoke an emotional reaction, not a rational reaction. The politically correct left wing liberals want conformity in thought to trigger the knee jerk responses to the buzzwords. It is ironic that ones who use the vocabulary of the politically correct use "tolerant" and encourage "diversity" while they attack the foundations of Western Civilization.

The use of these PC buzzwords functions to preempt issues rather than debate them, and give the illusion that PC leftists are on the higher moral ground.


I agree. It's as though they want people to feel guilty for forming their own opinions or disagreeing with "popular" (their) opinion.

The term "mean spirited" was a huge buzzword throughout most of the 90's. You don't hear it much anymore because it has probably run it's course.

If you analyze the phrase, it denotes that not only is a person mean, but their "spirit" is mean, as if the person using it actually knows the inner workings of a persons' spirit. The phrase is ridiculous, and again, it's designed specifically to lay guilt on someone, and convince others that the person is somehow "bad", regardless of the truth.

I agree. It's as though they want people to feel guilty for forming their own opinions or disagreeing with "popular" (their) opinion.

The term "mean spirited" was a huge buzzword throughout most of the 90's. You don't hear it much anymore because it has probably run it's course.

If you analyze the phrase, it denotes that not only is a person mean, but their "spirit" is mean, as if the person using it actually knows the inner workings of a persons' spirit. The phrase is ridiculous, and again, it's designed specifically to lay guilt on someone, and convince others that the person is somehow "bad", regardless of the truth.why do you think liberals are always trying to control people, anyway? why can't they let people make their own decisions?

http://pichold.com/Images/Smilies/wiggle.gif

why do you think liberals are always trying to control people, anyway? why can't they let people make their own decisions?

http://pichold.com/Images/Smilies/wiggle.gif

Because if they don't have a certian segment of the population under their control, and dependent on government, there is no longer any use for them, and they get voted out of office.

There's also the arrogance of those who think they know better how to run our lives, and spend our money than we do. They actually believe it.

They denounce corporations, yet cry the blues when big companies lay people off during hard times.

They "loathe" the military, yet complain when they don't show up fast enough for a hurricane.

They hate guns, yet ride around with an entourage of armed security people for protection, while telling private citizens to call 911 if they're attacked by criminals.

They denounce the rich, yet want as much of their money as they can possibly get their hands on.

They claim to care about the poor, yet have created the largest poverty ridden, multi-generational dependency class in history.

The list goes on and on.

Open question:

Is it conceivable that some people celebrate tolerance and diversity, and yet do not attack the foundations of Western Civilizations?


Furthermore, the assertions at the beginning of this thread that claim people are expected to tolerate Sharia Law and jihad are of the purest grade of bullsh-ite.

We are expected to tolerate Muslims, not Muslim extremists. Why does this simplest of distinctions seem to escape so many here?

M.

Because if they don't have a certian segment of the population under their control, and dependent on government, there is no longer any use for them, and they get voted out of office.

There's also the arrogance of those who think they know better how to run our lives, and spend our money than we do. They actually believe it.

They denounce corporations, yet cry the blues when big companies lay people off during hard times.

They "loathe" the military, yet complain when they don't show up fast enough for a hurricane.

They hate guns, yet ride around with an entourage of armed security people for protection, while telling private citizens to call 911 if they're attacked by criminals.

They denounce the rich, yet want as much of their money as they can possibly get their hands on.

They claim to care about the poor, yet have created the largest poverty ridden, multi-generational dependency class in history.

The list goes on and on.what a bunch of morons :nonono:

I'll make this short and sweet since I'm not really part of the conversation and it'll probably not get responded to.

The racial hatred isn't the crime. If it were, you could arrest someone merely for saying they hate your kind. So Buttercup, if you are at all listening, Hate Crime legislation has nothing to do with Orwell's depictions of a future in which mere thoughts are crimes.

No, present day Hate Crimes are first of all crimes like any other: assault, murder, arson, etc... with the added dimension of racial hatred.

M.

The crime is already being punished. You commit murder, you go to jail for life or possibly get the death penalty. Adding on an extra punishment because of a person's emotion or thought can only be criminalizing that thought, since the crime is already being punished.

It is the intent that makes the difference ... here are hypothetical examples

A man walks up to a blonde stranger and shoots him dead

A) the shooter was mentally deranged ... he thought the victim was going to kill him

B) the shooter shot the man thinking he was having an affair with his wife ... he was wrong

C) the shooter had a bad day at the office and he wanted to take it out on someone

D) the shooter hates blondes and thinks they are ruining the country, so he shot the man

E) the shooter is aroused by the sight of death

These were identical crimes with identical results ... the only difference being the motivation and mental state of the killer ... basically what was in is head.

I can guarantee you that the sentence would differ with each case ... who thinks that in each case the sentence should be the same ?

It is the intent that makes the difference ... here are hypothetical examples

A man walks up to a blonde stranger and shoots him dead

A) the shooter was mentally deranged ... he thought the victim was going to kill him

B) the shooter shot the man thinking he was having an affair with his wife ... he was wrong

C) the shooter had a bad day at the office and he wanted to take it out on someone

D) the shooter hates blondes and thinks they are ruining the country, so he shot the man

These were identical crimes with identical results ... the only difference being the motivation and mental state of the killer ... basically what was in is head.

I can guarantee you that the sentence would differ with each case ... who thinks that in each case the sentence should be the same ?

Thanks Java. Its really funny. A bunch of us have spelled this out in many different ways now, in the hope of it hitting home.
I must say, the argument has been refined and distilled quite nicely into your way of putting it.

Anyway :)

:nice:

M.

Thanks Java. Its really funny. A bunch of us have spelled this out in many different ways now, in the hope of it hitting home.
I must say, the argument has been refined and distilled quite nicely into your way of putting it.

Anyway :)

:nice:

M.

I place high value on refining and distilling :D

It is the intent that makes the difference ... here are hypothetical examples

A man walks up to a blonde stranger and shoots him dead

A) the shooter was mentally deranged ... he thought the victim was going to kill him

B) the shooter shot the man thinking he was having an affair with his wife ... he was wrong

C) the shooter had a bad day at the office and he wanted to take it out on someone

D) the shooter hates blondes and thinks they are ruining the country, so he shot the man

E) the shooter is aroused by the sight of death

These were identical crimes with identical results ... the only difference being the motivation and mental state of the killer ... basically what was in is head.

I can guarantee you that the sentence would differ with each case ... who thinks that in each case the sentence should be the same ?


I think we're arguing two different things here. I agree that intent, or whether something was premeditated makes a difference. Someone might not have intended to kill someone, but in that case it would be manslaughter, not murder.

But what I'm talking about is an emotion or thought. If someone intends to kill someone, and purposely kills that person, then what they are punished for is the crime - intentionally killing another human being. What some of you are trying to say is that a particular emotion - like hate, or a particular idea should be a crime. That is where we disagree, since when is it a crime to think something? It is the action against someone that is the crime.

The crime is already being punished. You commit murder, you go to jail for life or possibly get the death penalty. Adding on an extra punishment because of a person's emotion or thought can only be criminalizing that thought, since the crime is already being punished.

Hey Cindy,

No, the thought is not being criminalized, since, as has already been said, the thought alone can't get you thrown in jail.

It is the thought in conjunction with the crime that is weighing in on the punishment.

May I venture to suggest that although this is clearly not a case of punishing mere thought, the reason why you treat it as if it is is because you fear a slippery slope into Orwellian reality?

As we have discussed many times before, slippery slope arguments simply don't hold much water. This one is doomed from the start: the law has ALWAYS taken psychological factors into account in meting out punishment. I've said it before, and I say it again here. Java said it quite nicely a couple of posts ago too, and there have been others on this thread bearing the same message. Please take heed.
The law has always functioned this way, without slipping into criminalizing mere thoughts.

Thanks,
M.

Hey Cindy,

No, the thought is not being criminalized, since, as has already been said, the thought alone can't get you thrown in jail.

Of course it is being criminalized. Even if it is in conjunction with an action, if there is specific legislation that punishes 'hate' or 'bigotry' (which can be subjective) and adds on jail time, then the thought is being criminalized.


It is the thought in conjunction with the crime that is weighing in on the punishment.

May I venture to suggest that although this is clearly not a case of punishing mere thought, the reason why you treat it as if it is is because you fear a slippery slope into Orwellian reality?

I'm not naive enough to believe that the chipping away at rights ends at a specific place. It's the same with other rights that are constantly attacked, it happens slowly and gradually. You can dismiss that with your trusty 'slippery slope' comeback, but I prefer to learn from history, rights should not be suddenly fought for when it's too late... but when we still have the ability.


As we have discussed many times before, slippery slope arguments simply don't hold much water. This one is doomed from the start: the law has ALWAYS taken psychological factors into account in meting out punishment. I've said it before, and I say it again here. Java said it quite nicely a couple of posts ago too, and there have been others on this thread bearing the same message. Please take heed.
The law has always functioned this way, without slipping into criminalizing mere thoughts.

Thanks,
M.

As I posted to Java_man above, I'm not saying that the mental state or intent shouldnt be taken into consideration. Of course it has been. But again, what you are supporting is criminalizing (yes, even if it is in conjunction with the action) particular emotions or ideas.

And as I said to RBH yesterday, you may see this as a good thing, but it is very problematic, and it paves the way to outlaw certain types of speech, or ideas, and if that doesn't bother you.... then I don't know what to tell you.

Of course it is being criminalized. Even if it is in conjunction with an action, if there is specific legislation that punishes 'hate' or 'bigotry' (which can be subjective) and adds on jail time, then the thought is being criminalized.

As I posted to Java_man above, I'm not saying that the mental state or intent shouldnt be taken into consideration. Of course it has been. But again, what you are supporting is criminalizing (yes, even if it is in conjunction with the action) particular emotions or ideas.

And as I said to RBH yesterday, you may see this as a good thing, but it is very problematic, and it paves the way to outlaw certain types of speech, or ideas, and if that doesn't bother you.... then I don't know what to tell you.



I think we're arguing two different things here. I agree that intent, or whether something was premeditated makes a difference. Someone might not have intended to kill someone, but in that case it would be manslaughter, not murder.

But what I'm talking about is an emotion or thought. If someone intends to kill someone, and purposely kills that person, then what they are punished for is the crime - intentionally killing another human being. What some of you are trying to say is that a particular emotion - like hate, or a particular idea should be a crime. That is where we disagree, since when is it a crime to think something? It is the action against someone that is the crime.

You are arguing a straw man ... there are NO laws against merely beliefs or thinking here ... hate or otherwise ... if there were quite a few regulars here would be in jail.
You contradict yourself by agreeing that intent and mental state are important yet state that "particular emotions or ideas" are not (when in conjuction with a crime) what is the difference ?

If a bigot is engraged enough to kill a black man becuase he is with a white woman ... is his rage a "particular emotion / idea " or a "mental state " ?

You are arguing a straw man ... there are NO laws against merely beliefs or thinking here ... hate or otherwise ... and you contradict yourself by agreeing that intent and mental state are important yet deny that "Particular emotions or ideas" are not (when in conjuction with a crime)

Even if at this point it is only in conjunction with the action, as I just said to Malcolm, the emotion or the idea is being criminalized, that is what hate crime legislation is about, it adds on a punishment for hate. Which seems kinda redundant, because many crimes already involve hate (murder often does, for example) but we punish the person for the crime... What this legislation wants to do is politicize the crime. Outlawing certain types of hate, against certain people.

While I agree that it is very wrong to hate people, I don't agree that a THOUGHT or emotion should be a crime. When hate turns into an action, you have a crime. But the crime is already being punished.


If a bigot is engraged enough to kill a black man becuase he is with a white woman ... is his rage a "particular emotion / idea " or a "mental state " ?


By "mental state" I was talking about whether or not the person is mentally ill or mentally retarded, not any particular emotion or idea. Yes, sometimes people are punished differently if they are insane, but it isn't any particular emotion or idea that is being targeted - that is what hate crime legislation does.

Of course it is being criminalized. Even if it is in conjunction with an action, if there is specific legislation that punishes 'hate' or 'bigotry' (which can be subjective) and adds on jail time, then the thought is being criminalized.


You are arbitrarily separating bigotry from notion of intent, which you accept as being an acceptable consideration in sentencing. Bigotry is part of intent.
When you ask yourself the question: what was the intent of the murderer, if bigotry is present, it is necessarily part of the answer to that question.


I'm not naive enough to believe that the chipping away at rights ends at a specific place. It's the same with other rights that are constantly attacked, it happens slowly and gradually. You can dismiss that with your trusty 'slippery slope' comeback, but I prefer to learn from history, rights should not be suddenly fought for when it's too late... but when we still have the ability.


Ok, so I was right to suppose that is what you are fearing... Its a trusty 'comeback' because you can't argue against it rationally.

I'm with you when you say that we should fight against the erosion of our rights, but I don't see commiting bigoted crimes as a right, and I doubt you do either. We have the right to think whatever we want, and Hate Crime legislation has never tried to undermine that. But if certain patterns of thought lead to action, they are necessarily more grievous than others that lead to the same action (as demonstrated elegantly by Java).

The specific hole in your argument is that there is no reason to believe it will be too late to fight against Orwellian laws if they appear. That's paranoia, which you do not try to base in historical fact, despite your mention of history. The time to fight an unjust law is when it arises. The day someone tries to amend the law to punish mere thought: I'll be right by your side fighting against it. But for now, for reasons I have spelled out in a previous post, I find it overwhelmingly in society's interest to punish a crime of ethnic hatred more severely than the same crime that is devoid of ethnic hatred.


As I posted to Java_man above, I'm not saying that the mental state or intent shouldnt be taken into consideration. Of course it has been. But again, what you are supporting is criminalizing (yes, even if it is in conjunction with the action) particular emotions or ideas.


As said above, ethnic hatred is extremely relevant to intent and mental state.


And as I said to RBH yesterday, you may see this as a good thing, but it is very problematic, and it paves the way to outlaw certain types of speech, or ideas, and if that doesn't bother you.... then I don't know what to tell you.

Cindy, you know perfectly well that it would bother me if certain types of speech and ideas were outlawed. This posturing is unnecessary.

As with all slippery slope arguments, you need to demonstrate that it 'paves the way'. Simply asserting so doesn't cut it. You mentioned history, as if you were leaning on it to bolster your position. If that is so, you should be able to cite examples of how hate crime legislation similar to what we have today in America has, at another time in history, enabled Orwellian laws to creep in.
If you can do that, then you will have made the first step towards a rational argument as opposed to a formulaic one.

The slippery slope 'argument' is the perfect conservative knee-jerk: it can be applied to resist ANY change. Anything the person does not want can be argued to be the first step along a path that leads to hell. That's why it is not really considered an argument at all.

M.

By "mental state" I was talking about whether or not the person is mentally ill or mentally retarded, not any particular emotion or idea. Yes, sometimes people are punished differently if they are insane, but it isn't any particular emotion or idea that is being targeted - that is what hate crime legislation does.

retardation and insanity are just two narrow aspects of mental state.

A legally sane person could murder someone from rage or passion and that is treated differently (and rightly so) from someone that premeditates or plans the crime. Someone that targets and kills someone merely because the victim is a different race deserve additional punishment because they are a greater risk to society ... the power of their hatred is great enough to motivate the killer to commit a capital offence ... the courts can differentiate this motive (which is durable) from a motive such as jealous rage (which is transient) and less dangerous to society

You are abitrarily separating bigotry from notion of intent, which you accept as being an acceptable consideration in sentencing. Bigotry is part of intent.
When you ask yourself the question: what was the intent of the murderer, if bigotry is present, it is necessarily part of the answer to that question.

Bigotry isn't the issue. The crime is the intentional killing of another person, that may or may not have anything to do with racism, bigotry, hate.... sometimes it's simply a person with no conscience who kills for whatever reason - because they get some sort of sick satisfaction from it, or because they see people as disposable, or whatever. Again, there already is a punishment for murder - which by definition is the intentional, unlawful killing of another person.


Ok, so I was right to suppose that is what you are fearing... Its a trusty 'comeback' because you can't argue against it rationally.

I'm with you when you say that we should fight against the erosion of our rights, but I don't see commiting bigoted crimes as a right,

You just put words in my mouth. I NEVER said that bigoted crimes were a right. The crime is the action against another person. A thought is not a crime.

But the fact that you want it to be, apparently, is disturbing to me.



and I doubt you do either. We have the right to think whatever we want, and Hate Crime legislation has never tried to undermine that. But if certain patterns of thought lead to action, they are necessarily more grievous than others that lead to the same action (as demonstrated elegantly by Java).


You can spin it any way you like, you're still criminalizing an emotion, or idea.

Yes, I know, only when it is in conjunction with an action, right? Well it is still criminalizing a thought, and it is one step in the wrong direction. When certain types of speech are declared 'hate speech' and therefore illegal, then you might begin to realize what you are supporting.



The specific hole in your argument is that there is no reason to believe it will be too late to fight against Orwellian laws if they appear. That's paranoia, which you do not try to base in historical fact, despite your mention of history. The time to fight an unjust law is when it arises. The day someone tries to amend the law to punish mere thought: I'll be right by your side fighting against it. But for now, for reasons I have spelled out in a previous post, I find it overwhelmingly in society's interest to punish a crime of ethnic hatred more severely than the same crime that is devoid of ethnic hatred.

In light of human nature, and in light of the fact that I know there are people who continually seek to restrict rights and liberties, excuse me if I take your view that this legislation is created for noble purposes with a grain of salt. There may be many good people, with good intentions, who support hate-crime legislation... but I can see that it is definitely a way to (ultimately) restrict certain types of speech, or outlaw certain ideas.



As said above, ethnic hatred is extremely relevant to intent and mental state.

I agree that racism and ethnic hatred are horrible things. But I don't agree with criminalizing an idea or emotion. Again, the action is the crime.



Cindy, you know perfectly well that it would bother me if certain types of speech and ideas were outlawed. This posturing is unnecessary.

As with all slippery slope arguments, you need to demonstrate that it 'paves the way'. Simply asserting so doesn't cut it. You mentioned history, as if you were leaning on it to bolster your position. If that is so, you should be able to cite examples of how hate crime legislation similar to what we have today in America has, at another time in history, enabled Orwellian laws to creep in.
If you can do that, then you will have made the first step towards a rational argument as opposed to a formulaic one.

The slippery slope 'argument' is the perfect conservative knee-jerk: it can be applied to resist ANY change. Anything the person does not want can be argued to be the first step along a path that leads to hell. That's why it is not really considered an argument at all.

M.


I already mentioned that in a couple cases, in other countries, pastors were arrested for preaching that homosexuality is a sin. Because it was labeled 'hate speech'. Does freedom of speech mean only speech we like, or does it sometimes mean protecting even speech we don't like? In those cases, I don't know the details, but if it was a Christian pastor, then I'm sure he knew that it is wrong to teach others to hate people... the Bible says to love others. But simply saying that homosexuality is a sin isn't wrong, it is what the Bible says.... and to me it is absolutely frightening that the there are 'Thought Police' types out there who want to restrict freedom of speech, freedom of thought. And don't tell me that that is 'a slippery slope', you should know as well as I that there are people out there who hate the Bible, and hate certain ideas, and if given the chance, would love to restict or do away with certain viewpoints. To deny that is to stick your head in the sand and that is irrational and foolish.

Bigotry isn't the issue. The crime is the intentional killing of another person, that may or may not have anything to do with racism, bigotry, hate.... sometimes it's simply a person with no conscience who kills for whatever reason - because they get some sort of sick satisfaction from it, or because they see people as disposable, or whatever. Again, there already is a punishment for murder - which by definition is the intentional, unlawful killing of another person.


Cindy, surely you can see that you are making an arbitrary separation between the crime and its circumstances. It can only be said so many times before it becomes tiring for all involved: all circumstances of a crime influence the punishment meted out.

You are trying to argue that bigotry should NOT influence it.

In the US we have special sentencing for the murder of police officers. Would you whip out your bare-bones definition of murder to argue against such special sentencing?
Murdering children also carries heavier punishment: logically, you would oppose that because murder is just the act of intentional, unlawful killing of another human being... child or adult, it should not matter...


You just put words in my mouth. I NEVER said that bigoted crimes were a right.


I did not put those words in your mouth. I was simply building my argument.
You spoke vaguely of eroding our rights, and I anchored the discussion back in reality by pointing out that we are talking about crime motivated by ethnic hatred here: not vague rights that somehow might be lost further down a certain slippery slope.


The crime is the action against another person. A thought is not a crime.


Once again, during the sentencing phase of a trial, justice does not erect the fence between the two. Thoughts, words spoken, facial expressions relating to the crime- all of these become relevant to determining the punishment. Hate Crime legislation simply stipulates guidelines specifically for a certain area of circumstances, but circumstances themselves have always been taken into account.


But the fact that you want it to be, apparently, is disturbing to me.


We were doing so well: do you really want to start annoying me?
You know very well that I do not want to make mere thoughts a crime.


You can spin it any way you like, you're still criminalizing an emotion, or idea.


Not in a way that it has not already been criminal since our justice system matured.
Lack of remorse is of the realm of emotions. And it has always influenced the severity of punishment.
Malicious hatred has always influenced the severity of punishment.

You can ignore these facts as long as you like, its not going to make them go away.



Yes, I know, only when it is in conjunction with an action, right? Well it is still criminalizing a thought, and it is one step in the wrong direction.


If that is so, then you should be just as outraged that we punish terrorism with more severity than we do crimes without the terrorist motivation.


When certain types of speech are declared 'hate speech' and therefore illegal, then you might begin to realize what you are supporting.


Are you incapable of making simple distinctions here? What I am supporting has nothing to do with declaring certain types of speech illegal. You have failed to demonstrate your slippery slope, yet you continue to lean on it as the pillar of your argument. :rolleyes:


In light of human nature, and in light of the fact that I know there are people who continually seek to restrict rights and liberties, excuse me if I take your view that this legislation is created for noble purposes with a grain of salt.


In light of human nature, and in light of the evil robbers of rights and liberties, you could argue that ANY law is a step in the wrong direction. When are you going to realize this?

A law exists against cruelty towards animals. With the 'arguments' you use, you could say: "well seeing as some humans are continually trying to steal away our rights, these anti animal cruelty laws could lead to outlawing eating meat".
Can't you see how patently absurd this argumentation is?


There may be many good people, with good intentions, who support hate-crime legislation...


Wow, generous of you to recognize the possibility that some of us have good intentions!


but I can see that it is definitely a way to (ultimately) restrict certain types of speech, or outlaw certain ideas.


Shall I start arguing in earnest that anti animal cruelty laws is a way to prevent people from eating meat? You won't like it: you'll find me exasperating and you'll beg me to stop. But maybe, just maybe, you'll get an inkling of what its like to be on the other side of this discussion.


I agree that racism and ethnic hatred are horrible things. But I don't agree with criminalizing an idea or emotion. Again, the action is the crime.


Again, justice has never made that dry distinction between the crime and the emotions and ideas that surround it.


I already mentioned that in a couple cases, in other countries, pastors were arrested for preaching that homosexuality is a sin. Because it was labeled 'hate speech'.


Yes, I believe you. The day someone suggests doing that here, I'll be right by your side fighting it.


Does freedom of speech mean only speech we like, or does it sometimes mean protecting even speech we don't like? In those cases, I don't know the details, but if it was a Christian pastor, then I'm sure he knew that it is wrong to teach others to hate people... the Bible says to love others. But simply saying that homosexuality is a sin isn't wrong, it is what the Bible says.... and to me it is absolutely frightening that the there are 'Thought Police' types out there who want to restrict freedom of speech, freedom of thought.


Sure: I respect your right to be able to believe this, and even to want to preach it to others. Its not being criminalized here in the US. The day it is, I'll be right by your side to protect your freedom of religion, and your freedom of speech.


And don't tell me that that is 'a slippery slope', you should know as well as I that there are people out there who hate the Bible, and hate certain ideas, and if given the chance, would love to restict or do away with certain viewpoints. To deny that is to stick your head in the sand and that is irrational and foolish.

Sure: I don't deny it, and you know very well I don't, making your talk of foolishness and irrationality another instance of unnecessary posturing.

The catch is, and I've said this to you before - perhaps you will address it this time - that 'argument' can be used for banning anything and everything. That's why, in the real world, we make very specific legislation that allows certain things but outlaws others. We do not allow infringing on freedom of speech unless it specifcally and intentionally incites violence.

You can't just use the boogey man of Bible haters to motivate how this country is run, Cindy. It would be like me saying: "I know there are racists out there and allowing them too much freedom could lead to someone I love getting hurt by them... so lets lock them all up". I would be using the boogey man the same way you are if I were to adopt that attitude. You want to prevent anything that 'might' lead to the erosion of your religious freedom: you can't run a country that way.

This world is a world of very specific realities, and you have to legislate to cover all the bases.

M.

Yes, I believe you. The day someone suggests doing that here, I'll be right by your side fighting it.


Sure: I respect your right to be able to believe this, and even to want to preach it to others. Its not being criminalized here in the US. The day it is, I'll be right by your side to protect your freedom of religion, and your freedom of speech.



LOL! First you say that I have not given any examples, and then when I do reiterate a couple examples, you change it to in the US! What's next, you'll be "right there by my side" if and when it happens in California?

As for the rest of your post, when/if I decide to take the time to go through it point by point, I'll reply. But as I have told you many times (and I'm sorry, but i'm being honest) similar to how you don't like boe's style of interacting, I don't like yours, and this isn't fun for me. Since i'm not getting paid to post here, if I don't enjoy it, then it's not worth spending lots of time trying to have a discussion with someone whose tone and attitude irks me. And that is nothing new, i've told you that many times before, but it hasn't stopped you from replying to my posts. Outside the debate threads, you're not as bad, but on these threads, we go through this same thing almost every time. I can predict what will happen next, if you reply, you'll say something like, "That's just like you... yadda yadda yadda..."

I'm just being honest, Malcolm. Like I said, I might get back here tomorrow, but at the moment the prospect of picking apart your post point by point isn't that appealing. With the way you talk about me, you probably feel similarly.

LOL! First you say that I have not given any examples, and then when I do reiterate a couple examples, you change it to in the US! What's next, you'll be "right there by my side" if and when it happens in California?


I didn't 'change' to the US. Your examples did not illustrate how taking emotions and thought into account in criminal sentencing has caused a slide towards 'thought crime' type prosecution. So your examples were not really examples. All I could do in response to them is say: "that's all very well, but that's not what is happening here".

As for your sarcasm about being by your side: if you chose not to believe me when I say I would fight 'thought crime' prosecution, or infringements of religious freedom, then don't believe me...


As for the rest of your post, when/if I decide to take the time to go through it point by point, I'll reply. But as I have told you many times (and I'm sorry, but i'm being honest) similar to how you don't like boe's style of interacting, I don't like yours, and this isn't fun for me. Since i'm not getting paid to post here, if I don't enjoy it, then it's not worth spending lots of time trying to have a discussion with someone whose tone and attitude irks me. And that is nothing new, i've told you that many times before, but it hasn't stopped you from replying to my posts. Outside the debate threads, you're not as bad, but on these threads, we go through this same thing almost every time. I can predict what will happen next, if you reply, you'll say something like, "That's just like you... yadda yadda yadda..."

I'm just being honest, Malcolm. Like I said, I might get back here tomorrow, but at the moment the prospect of picking apart your post point by point isn't that appealing. With the way you talk about me, you probably feel similarly.

Sure, I know: we have a knack for getting on each other's nerves.

If you respond, can you at least recognize that the arguments you have provided are akin to me arguing against anti-animal cruelty laws simply because they can be seen as a stepping stone to outlawing eating meat?

If you can recognize that the slippery slope argument you are using is terribly ineffective, I'll be happy to agree to disagree: I'd rather you recognize that you're just bothered by Hate Crime legislation without necessarily being able to explain why, than for you to insist the slippery slope argument is valid. Why? Because its the intellectually honest thing to do, and I would rather have respect for you, than not. Show me you can be real.

M.

If a bigot is engraged enough to kill a black man becuase he is with a white woman ... is his rage a "particular emotion / idea " or a "mental state " ?

Depends if it's a White doing the killing. If a black did the killing, he'd be crazy. If a White, he'd be a bigot.

In your example, that would be a "particular emotion/idea", which frames a hate crime. In the example of Colin Ferguson, a "mental state", which is not a hate crime.

retardation and insanity are just two narrow aspects of mental state.

A legally sane person could murder someone from rage or passion and that is treated differently (and rightly so) from someone that premeditates or plans the crime. Someone that targets and kills someone merely because the victim is a different race deserve additional punishment because they are a greater risk to society ... the power of their hatred is great enough to motivate the killer to commit a capital offence ... the courts can differentiate this motive (which is durable) from a motive such as jealous rage (which is transient) and less dangerous to society

You're talking about a premeditated murder from racial motives. What about a murder of rage or passion that springs from racial motives? Do we have two different kinds of hate crimes here? Would you recommend a greater "hate enhancement" to the punishment for the premeditated murder or for the rage murder?

Some men are disposed to racialism and some are disposed toward jealousy. What's more durable about racialism than jealousy? If a man was jealous enough to kill over it, you think he would be unlikely to do it again?

Is the jealous man less a threat to society somehow, even though he kills out of jealousy?

It is the intent that makes the difference ... here are hypothetical examples

A man walks up to a blonde stranger and shoots him dead

A) the shooter was mentally deranged ... he thought the victim was going to kill him

B) the shooter shot the man thinking he was having an affair with his wife ... he was wrong

C) the shooter had a bad day at the office and he wanted to take it out on someone

D) the shooter hates blondes and thinks they are ruining the country, so he shot the man

E) the shooter is aroused by the sight of death

These were identical crimes with identical results ... the only difference being the motivation and mental state of the killer ... basically what was in is head.

I can guarantee you that the sentence would differ with each case ... who thinks that in each case the sentence should be the same ?

Not so fast. A, B, and C all relate to circumstances surrounding the killer, not his thoughts. D is what would be covered under hate crimes legislation, and I submit, would not influence the sentence one way or the other. E describes a mental illness, which is already acknowledged in the law. I fear these don't make a good case for hate crimes legislation.

In the US we have special sentencing for the murder of police officers. Would you whip out your bare-bones definition of murder to argue against such special sentencing?


Malcolm, the State extending special protection to its enforcers is understandable. But with hate crimes enhancements, we have the State extending special protection to an ideology. That’s where the problem arises. Surely you can appreciate the nuance, Malcolm? Please tell me you can. I’d be so disappointed if you were unable to grasp the distinction.

What about a “greed enhancement”? There’s a durable motive if I ever heard of one. What makes a racially motivated crime more egregious than a greed-motivated crime?

What about a “greed enhancement”? There’s a durable motive if I ever heard of one. What makes a racially motivated crime more egregious than a greed-motivated crime?

In my eyes, both are particularly reprehensible. Our society promotes greed, however.

Malcolm, the State extending special protection to its enforcers is understandable. But with hate crimes enhancements, we have the State extending special protection to an ideology. That’s where the problem arises. Surely you can appreciate the nuance, Malcolm? Please tell me you can. I’d be so disappointed if you were unable to grasp the distinction.

I won't disappoint you: the nuance is perfectly distinct.
However what you are not acknowledging is that society is protecting itself through both measures. In one, it extends special protection to its enforcers, and in the other, it takes steps towards preventing racial violence, which, in this country, is one of the greatest potential activators of large scale internal conflict. You know this.

And if you wish to remain blind to that angle (I know you well enough to know fanning the flames of racial hatred is not completely antithetical to your agenda), you can see it as an extra protection for the enforcers: in the case of race riots, police officers have to stand in the line of fire.

Society protects ideologies through every act of law. Its nothing to get all worked up about just because race is involved.

Thanks,

M.

Finally we can talk honestly about it, without endlessly butting against the charade that “hate crimes” are somehow not political crimes.

The whole idea is to taint a point of view that the State deems unacceptable.

Not so fast. A, B, and C all relate to circumstances surrounding the killer, not his thoughts.

Wrong ... in each example the ONLY difference is what is in the killers mind ... all of these would be treated differently legally ... same crime ... same innocent victim

can someone explain to me what political or philosophical sense does it make to not only "tolerate" but embrace and forcibly integrate things that no one asked for or wants?

:shrug:- http://www.constitution.org/jl/tolerati.htm

Also, read up on Hugo Grotius, Voltaire oh, and some Bayle as well. You'll see that there's plenty of idea behind it :D

Wrong ... in each example the ONLY difference is what is in the killers mind ... all of these would be treated differently legally ... same crime ... same innocent victim

Not necessarily. In the examples, what is in the killer's mind stems directly from immediate circumstances. Hate crimes legislation punishes long held attitudes that have no proximate cause. For example, if the killer thought the victim had an affair with his wife and killed him, he would be treated differently if the alleged affair had happened years, as opposed to hours, previously.

Not necessarily. In the examples, what is in the killer's mind stems directly from immediate circumstances. Hate crimes legislation punishes long held attitudes that have no proximate cause. For example, if the killer thought the victim had an affair with his wife and killed him, he would be treated differently if the alleged affair had happened years, as opposed to hours, previously.

so are you saying that immediate circumstances should make a legal difference , but "long held attitudes" should not ?

If so ... your example refutes your own argument ... the courts would NOT be more lenient on the man who killed his wifes lover from years ago.

Ugh. Hate crimes. Dumb. We allow for much variance for sentencing (ie. minimums and maximums) already. Hate crime is just an added buzzword so we could have another "pet issue" for the morons at large.

so are you saying that immediate circumstances should make a legal difference , but "long held attitudes" should not ?

If so ... your example refutes your own argument ... the courts would NOT be more lenient on the man who killed his wifes lover from years ago.

No, my example strengthens it, because the courts would be MORE harsh on someone who killed another person because he thought that person had an affair with his wife years ago. They would be more lenient on someone who found his wife in bed with someone else, didn't get a real good look at him, then killed someone in the street who looked somewhat like his wife's lover, all in the same day. That's why it's called a crime of passion. The bottom line is, there should be one punishment for assault or murder, with extenuating circumstances REDUCING the punishment. There should not be increased punishment because of the purpetrator's attitude.

No, my example strengthens it, because the courts would be MORE harsh on someone who killed another person because he thought that person had an affair with his wife years ago. They would be more lenient on someone who found his wife in bed with someone else, didn't get a real good look at him, then killed someone in the street who looked somewhat like his wife's lover, all in the same day. That's why it's called a crime of passion. The bottom line is, there should be one punishment for assault or murder, with extenuating circumstances REDUCING the punishment. There should not be increased punishment because of the purpetrator's attitude.

LOL ... it must be early for you

first ... being MORE harsh is the same as what I said "Not being more lenient"

second ... you keep refuting your own argument ....

Hate crimes legislation punishes long held attitudes that have no proximate cause. For example, if the killer thought the victim had an affair with his wife and killed him, he would be treated differently if the alleged affair had happened years, as opposed to hours, previously.

you equate hate crimes punished for "long held attitudes that have no proximate cause" with the man you killed because of "alleged affair had happened years, as opposed to hours, previously" then admit that the crime of passion would (rightfully) get the more lenient sentencing

the hate crime gets the enhanced sentencing because it involves "long held attitudes" vs a proximate crime of passion

as far as the last argument ... many extenuating circumstances work in the defendants favor ... and others add time to the sentence ... that is the most flexible and reasonable way of sentencing

I can just imagine Thumper sitting at home polishing his shotgun and thinking to himself, "damnit! why can't I go kill all the muslims?"

LOL ... it must be early for you

first ... being MORE harsh is the same as what I said "Not being more lenient"

second ... you keep refuting your own argument ....



you equate hate crimes punished for "long held attitudes that have no proximate cause" with the man you killed because of "alleged affair had happened years, as opposed to hours, previously" then admit that the crime of passion would (rightfully) get the more lenient sentencing

the hate crime gets the enhanced sentencing because it involves "long held attitudes" vs a proximate crime of passion

as far as the last argument ... many extenuating circumstances work in the defendants favor ... and others add time to the sentence ... that is the most flexible and reasonable way of sentencing

You're missing my point. There should be no difference in the sentences of a person who randomly murdered someone for no apparent reason and one who murdered someone because they thought that person had an affair with their spouse 30 years previously. The "long-held attitude" adds nothing to the sentence, as it should not. The same should apply in considering hate crimes legislation, where you impose additional punishment based on the perpetrator's THOUGHTS. The real question is, what's the baseline for the worst type of a particular crime, when it's committed randomly for no reason, or when it's committed because someone simply doesn't like someone else's skin color? Either way the victim is victimized, yes?