[quote]Headhunter wrote:
I have to admit that I was brainwashed by the liberal media. When I hear ‘hate-crime’, I think of white-on-black, or straight-on-gay. I didn’t realize that its mostly the other way, with regard to race especially.
[/quote]
Please prove that most hate crimes are Black on White and Gay on Straight Hate Crimes. Thank you.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
I have to admit that I was brainwashed by the liberal media. When I hear ‘hate-crime’, I think of white-on-black, or straight-on-gay. I didn’t realize that its mostly the other way, with regard to race especially.
Please prove that most hate crimes are Black on White and Gay on Straight Hate Crimes. Thank you.[/quote]
I do not know if the vast amount of black on white crime is motivated by hate. I also do not even know how you define a hate crime. If I murder someone, I damn well probably hated them for some reason or another. If I was a robber, I could have hated the mere presence of a cashier in a convenience store, in the way of me and my cash. I am assuming that hate crimes are comitted and classified when one makes it known during the crime, via voice, that they hate the other person based on their sexual orientation or race. There are plenty of reliable websites (ie; reliable meaning government websites) with statistics showing that most interracial crimes are non-white-on-white. This is not meant as an attack on other races. It is just how it is.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
I have to admit that I was brainwashed by the liberal media. When I hear ‘hate-crime’, I think of white-on-black, or straight-on-gay. I didn’t realize that its mostly the other way, with regard to race especially.
Please prove that most hate crimes are Black on White and Gay on Straight Hate Crimes. Thank you.[/quote]
Um…didn’t Zeb and Doogie do that several posts ago? They cited, for ex, FBI stats.
There’s an interesting question: What exactly is a ‘hate’ crime? If a black person robs me at gunpoint, its not a hate crime. If he/she says, “Hand over your money, cracker!”, does that now qualify? If they shoot me and say, “Die, white boy!” but don’t take my money, is that for sure a hate crime?
It seems to me that the concept is too open to interpretation. What if the investigator is having a bad day? What if their spouse just ran off with someone of a different race?
My point: Laws based upon subjective judgment seem like a sure road to ruin.
Since I am old and have different values than most of you, maybe one of you would kindly explain it all to me (except Harris. I’m sure he’d fit a ‘motherfucker’ or equivalent in there and I’m tired of that shit.).
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
I have to admit that I was brainwashed by the liberal media. When I hear ‘hate-crime’, I think of white-on-black, or straight-on-gay. I didn’t realize that its mostly the other way, with regard to race especially.
Please prove that most hate crimes are Black on White and Gay on Straight Hate Crimes. Thank you.
Um…didn’t Zeb and Doogie do that several posts ago? They cited, for ex, FBI stats.
There’s an interesting question: What exactly is a ‘hate’ crime? If a black person robs me at gunpoint, its not a hate crime. If he/she says, “Hand over your money, cracker!”, does that now qualify? If they shoot me and say, “Die, white boy!” but don’t take my money, is that for sure a hate crime?
It seems to me that the concept is too open to interpretation. What if the investigator is having a bad day? What if their spouse just ran off with someone of a different race?
My point: Laws based upon subjective judgment seem like a sure road to ruin.
Since I am old and have different values than most of you, maybe one of you would kindly explain it all to me (except Harris. I’m sure he’d fit a ‘motherfucker’ or equivalent in there and I’m tired of that shit.).
[/quote]
Doogie listed crime statistics that pointed out the colors of those involved. He didn’t list only “hate crimes” which, to my knowledge, also depend on the state the act was committed in. The Kevin Shiftlett tragedy would definitely fit the catefory of “hate crime”, even though Virginia, according to prosecutors, has no hate crime initiatives that the suspect could have been tried under. That was the reason given officially for that case not being handled under that distinction…not to mention the fact that the outcome of the trial wouldn’t have changed much anyway other than by name. Also, the suspect was determined to be mentally incompetent which many would argue sets this apart from a sane hate crime. That info from:
[quote]Suspect in Kevin Shifflett Not Ready for Trial, Psychologist Says
RSS Feeds From ABC 7 Friday February 25, 2005 12:21pm
Alexandria, Va. (AP) - A man accused of fatally stabbing an 8-year-old boy nearly five years ago remains incompetent to stand trial, according to a psychologist who initially indicated the defendant had been restored to competency.
Gregory Murphy, accused of killing Kevin Shifflett as the boy played in the yard of his great-grandmother’s house, is receiving treatment for schizophrenia at Central State Hospital in Petersburg.
Evan Nelson, a forensic psychologist appointed by the court to give a second opinion of Murphy’s mental status, gave a preliminary indication in December that Murphy was competent.
But Nelson changed his opinion after further meetings with Murphy, in a report submitted Friday for a court hearing.
In his report, Nelson said Murphy demonstrates a strong grasp of the charges against him but still lacks the ability to assist his attorneys in preparing his defense.
Murphy is no longer violently psychotic (he once knocked his own attorney out cold following a pretrial hearing in October 2000) and now exhibits an “underlying core personality that is meek and passive,” Nelson wrote.
But he said Murphy’s personality traits and low intellect combine to give him an irrational distrust of his own attorneys.
“Mr. Murphy has the innate ability to work effectively with his attorneys but because of his personality and limited intellect he will need help to bridge that gap,” Nelson wrote.
It is not entirely clear what will happen to Murphy if he is not soon restored to competency. Under Virginia law, if a defendant is not restored to competency within five years of his arrest, charges are dropped and the defendant is committed to a mental hospital until he is deemed safe for release.
The five-year deadline for Murphy comes in October. But the Virginia legislature changed the law in response to the Murphy case to eliminate the five-year window in capital-murder cases. It is not clear, though, if that law can be applied retroactively to Murphy’s case.
In addition, Alexandria (website - news) Commonwealth’s Attorney Randolph Sengel said Friday that he believes he could reinstate charges against Murphy even if Murphy regains competency after the five-year window lapses, regardless of how the new law is interpreted.
Sengel said he remains hopeful that he will be able to bring Murphy to trial and that the public need not worry that Murphy will be out on the street.
“He will remain in confinement as long as he remains a danger to himself and others,” Sengel said, even if Murphy is never brought to trial.
Nelson was commissioned by the court to evaluate Murphy after he petitioned the judge and prosecutors, saying the medical team at Central State Hospital and his court-appointed lawyers were conspiring to portray him as incompetent and retarded when he is not.
According to Nelson’s report, Murphy believes he is innocent despite some strong evidence against him, including a check belonging to Murphy with the victim’s blood on it.
Murphy was arrested and charged with capital murder in October 2000, nearly six months after Kevin’s murder in a tight-knit Alexandria neighborhood left the community there shaken.
[/quote]
The man was schizophrenic psychotic.
[quote]Guttus Gumptuous wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
I have to admit that I was brainwashed by the liberal media. When I hear ‘hate-crime’, I think of white-on-black, or straight-on-gay. I didn’t realize that its mostly the other way, with regard to race especially.
Please prove that most hate crimes are Black on White and Gay on Straight Hate Crimes. Thank you.
I do not know if the vast amount of black on white crime is motivated by hate. I also do not even know how you define a hate crime. If I murder someone, I damn well probably hated them for some reason or another. If I was a robber, I could have hated the mere presence of a cashier in a convenience store, in the way of me and my cash. I am assuming that hate crimes are comitted and classified when one makes it known during the crime, via voice, that they hate the other person based on their sexual orientation or race. There are plenty of reliable websites (ie; reliable meaning government websites) with statistics showing that most interracial crimes are non-white-on-white. This is not meant as an attack on other races. It is just how it is.
[/quote]
The entire concept of a hate crime is flawed and meant to twist justice. If I kill you for your wallet or just because I don’t like the color of your skin, you are still dead! You are not more dead if it was because I’m racists.
So the lesson that hate crime legislation has taught us is that my motivation for the crime is what IS the crime, not the act itself. And this does not support justice or a true fair and even approach to the law.
So what we have now are the thought police. Being punished for how you think and not what you do!
But then again, changing how people think is what has been the lefts agenda for years.
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
But then again, changing how people think is what has been the lefts agenda for years.
[/quote]
Dumbest comment all day. What exactly are censorship and moral laws aimed at? I am all for hate crimes being distinguished because some of them have been truly horrible. If a man kills someone else just because of their skin color or their sexual preference, why would anyone be against them receiving a harsher penalty?
The one example thrown on the boards of a black psychopath killing a white child isn’t exactly the best example considering his mental state, the laws in that particular state that don’t have hate crimes initiatives and the fact that he STILL can’t even stand trial for it because of his psychosis. While there may be a bias, there are biases all over this country.
How many minority girls have gone missing while the country is focused on one white girl in Aruba? Jon Benet Ramsey is STILL getting headlines as if she was the only girl to get murdered in the last 15 years.
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
Guttus Gumptuous wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
I have to admit that I was brainwashed by the liberal media. When I hear ‘hate-crime’, I think of white-on-black, or straight-on-gay. I didn’t realize that its mostly the other way, with regard to race especially.
Please prove that most hate crimes are Black on White and Gay on Straight Hate Crimes. Thank you.
I do not know if the vast amount of black on white crime is motivated by hate. I also do not even know how you define a hate crime. If I murder someone, I damn well probably hated them for some reason or another. If I was a robber, I could have hated the mere presence of a cashier in a convenience store, in the way of me and my cash. I am assuming that hate crimes are comitted and classified when one makes it known during the crime, via voice, that they hate the other person based on their sexual orientation or race. There are plenty of reliable websites (ie; reliable meaning government websites) with statistics showing that most interracial crimes are non-white-on-white. This is not meant as an attack on other races. It is just how it is.
The entire concept of a hate crime is flawed and meant to twist justice. If I kill you for your wallet or just because I don’t like the color of your skin, you are still dead! You are not more dead if it was because I’m racists.
So the lesson that hate crime legislation has taught us is that my motivation for the crime is what IS the crime, not the act itself. And this does not support justice or a true fair and even approach to the law.
So what we have now are the thought police. Being punished for how you think and not what you do!
But then again, changing how people think is what has been the lefts agenda for years.
[/quote]
I finally see someone on this post is using his brain to the fullest capacity, as I too, feel that the entire basis of hate crime is ridiculous. Professor X states that some of these hate crimes have been gruesome. Well, nearly all murders are pretty gruesome. Jeffrey Dalmer (spelling?) committed some rather bizarre, disturbing, completely deranged crimes in his day and it was not motivated by hatred of his victims.
Anyway, I truly do not know if separatism is the way to go. But I will say that if anyone studies current events or history, they will see that diversity and hate go hand in hand. If you force people of different abilities, different emotionality, different cultures, and different standards of living (ie: different RACES), you will see a lot more hatred and a lot more violence, disorder, and/or confusion!
Think of the places on this earth that have the most ethnic, religious, and racial diversity and you will see that they are all basketcases: the Balkans, Africa, the Middle East, and yes, parts of the United States. And now we see the same problems arising in France, Germany, Greece, Sweden, and Norway.
And one more thing. Race is not a matter of skin color! Although the different races and mongrel races of this world have different skin color, there are SUBSTANTIAL differences amongst them in emotionality, intellect, intelligence, self restraint, propensity towards violence, and many, many other physical differences! There are 300 genetic differences between whites and blacks. And also, if it was just a matter of skin color, then why are some diseases unique to some racial groups (ie: sickle cell anemia in blacks; Tay-Sachs disease in Jews). I personally feel that anyone who states that the difference amongst races is just skin color is utterly ridiculous!
[quote]Guttus Gumptuous wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
Guttus Gumptuous wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
I have to admit that I was brainwashed by the liberal media. When I hear ‘hate-crime’, I think of white-on-black, or straight-on-gay. I didn’t realize that its mostly the other way, with regard to race especially.
Please prove that most hate crimes are Black on White and Gay on Straight Hate Crimes. Thank you.
I do not know if the vast amount of black on white crime is motivated by hate. I also do not even know how you define a hate crime. If I murder someone, I damn well probably hated them for some reason or another. If I was a robber, I could have hated the mere presence of a cashier in a convenience store, in the way of me and my cash. I am assuming that hate crimes are comitted and classified when one makes it known during the crime, via voice, that they hate the other person based on their sexual orientation or race. There are plenty of reliable websites (ie; reliable meaning government websites) with statistics showing that most interracial crimes are non-white-on-white. This is not meant as an attack on other races. It is just how it is.
The entire concept of a hate crime is flawed and meant to twist justice. If I kill you for your wallet or just because I don’t like the color of your skin, you are still dead! You are not more dead if it was because I’m racists.
So the lesson that hate crime legislation has taught us is that my motivation for the crime is what IS the crime, not the act itself. And this does not support justice or a true fair and even approach to the law.
So what we have now are the thought police. Being punished for how you think and not what you do!
But then again, changing how people think is what has been the lefts agenda for years.
I finally see someone on this post is using his brain to the fullest capacity, as I too, feel that the entire basis of hate crime is ridiculous. Professor X states that some of these hate crimes have been gruesome. Well, nearly all murders are pretty gruesome. Jeffrey Dalmer (spelling?) committed some rather bizarre, disturbing, completely deranged crimes in his day and it was not motivated by hatred of his victims.
Anyway, I truly do not know if separatism is the way to go. But I will say that if anyone studies current events or history, they will see that diversity and hate go hand in hand. If you force people of different abilities, different emotionality, different cultures, and different standards of living (ie: different RACES), you will see a lot more hatred and a lot more violence, disorder, and/or confusion!
Think of the places on this earth that have the most ethnic, religious, and racial diversity and you will see that they are all basketcases: the Balkans, Africa, the Middle East, and yes, parts of the United States. And now we see the same problems arising in France, Germany, Greece, Sweden, and Norway.
And one more thing. Race is not a matter of skin color! Although the different races and mongrel races of this world have different skin color, there are SUBSTANTIAL differences amongst them in emotionality, intellect, intelligence, self restraint, propensity towards violence, and many, many other physical differences! There are 300 genetic differences between whites and blacks. And also, if it was just a matter of skin color, then why are some diseases unique to some racial groups (ie: sickle cell anemia in blacks; Tay-Sachs disease in Jews). I personally feel that anyone who states that the difference amongst races is just skin color is utterly ridiculous![/quote]
There is more genetic variation within races than across them. Everything your wrote is easily attributed to social factors and not inherent differences between races.
Specifically intelligence, which I see you wrote twice. More likely, there is a substantial difference in education, as reflected by socioeconomic factors, and when these are accounted for, there is no significant difference in intelligence across races.
Two truths that I want to share.
The first is that it never ceases to amze me just how much bullshit people are willing to accept when talking about race. “Blacks have not realized the American Dream because of slavery and Jim Crow,” is one example that comes to mind.
That’s a complete load of crap. If it was true, then the black family would be stronger now than it was 50 years ago (it isn’t). Black illegitimacy rates would be lower now than 50 years ago (they’re not). The black crime rate would be lower now than it was 50 years ago (it isn’t). The FACT is that in some ways blacks have benefited from the end of slavery and Jim Crow . . . and in other ways their circumstances have gotten worse!
Now, logically, that might suggest that maybe the REAL problem with blacks is their inability to handle freedom and self-determination. (Take one look around the world. Every country run by blacks is a disaster.) So maybe blacks don’t function well in modern society. If so, then that can all be fixed. But we can’t even begin to fix the problem because WE’RE NOT ALLOWED TO TALK ABOUT IT.
So we ignore study after study which shows that blacks are different than whites physically, and generally have lower IQs as a population. We ignore studies that tell us that blacks have higher rates of testosterone which makes them more aggessive. We ignore population studies which suggest that blacks and whites follow different modes of child rearing.
But ignorance is only the tip of the iceberg. Some academics have gone the Afrocentric route and made up a lot of lies about black inventors (who according to some racist black websites appear to have invented every single thing currently used in America). Or they’ve made up a false history of Africa (“great wondrous empires” when in reality Africans never got around to inventing an alphabet). Or the NAACP sets up shop in Hollywwod and makes sure that every TV show has a quota of blacks acting in positions of power (which is a complete fantasy).
In short, we’d rather IGNORE REAL DIFFERENCES and LIE about them than examine them and figure out how to live together despite them.
And this brings me to my second “truth:” That the little singing Nazis represent a SUBSTANTIAL number of Americans who are sick and tired of the bullshit and want no more part of an integrated society.
The real cost of liberal lies about race over the last 50 years isn’t just the damage it has done to blacks. The real cost is the alienation that it has caused among whites. What were “fringe movements” 50 years ago are growing in strength every day.
The “white nationalist movement” isn’t getting stronger because of the little Gaede sisters or talking-heads like David Duke. They’re getting stronger because of stupid white liberals, racist Mexicans, groups like MECHA and La Raza, racist blacks and racist black (so-called) leaders like Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Louis Farrakhan, and issues like Affirmative Action and black on white crime.
Ignore the truth at your own peril. What WAS once a fringe is no longer a fringe. The Gaede sisters represent a growing power in American politics.
And it’s a dangerous one because history tells us that you haven’t seen ANGER until you’ve seen angry white men fighting for what they believe.
[quote]JJJJ wrote:
Two truths that I want to share.
The first is that it never ceases to amze me just how much bullshit people are willing to accept when talking about race. “Blacks have not realized the American Dream because of slavery and Jim Crow,” is one example that comes to mind.
That’s a complete load of crap. If it was true, then the black family would be stronger now than it was 50 years ago (it isn’t). Black illegitimacy rates would be lower now than 50 years ago (they’re not). The black crime rate would be lower now than it was 50 years ago (it isn’t). The FACT is that in some ways blacks have benefited from the end of slavery and Jim Crow . . . and in other ways their circumstances have gotten worse!
Now, logically, that might suggest that maybe the REAL problem with blacks is their inability to handle freedom and self-determination. (Take one look around the world. Every country run by blacks is a disaster.) So maybe blacks don’t function well in modern society. If so, then that can all be fixed. But we can’t even begin to fix the problem because WE’RE NOT ALLOWED TO TALK ABOUT IT.
So we ignore study after study which shows that blacks are different than whites physically, and generally have lower IQs as a population. We ignore studies that tell us that blacks have higher rates of testosterone which makes them more aggessive. We ignore population studies which suggest that blacks and whites follow different modes of child rearing.
But ignorance is only the tip of the iceberg. Some academics have gone the Afrocentric route and made up a lot of lies about black inventors (who according to some racist black websites appear to have invented every single thing currently used in America). Or they’ve made up a false history of Africa (“great wondrous empires” when in reality Africans never got around to inventing an alphabet). Or the NAACP sets up shop in Hollywwod and makes sure that every TV show has a quota of blacks acting in positions of power (which is a complete fantasy).
In short, we’d rather IGNORE REAL DIFFERENCES and LIE about them than examine them and figure out how to live together despite them.
And this brings me to my second “truth:” That the little singing Nazis represent a SUBSTANTIAL number of Americans who are sick and tired of the bullshit and want no more part of an integrated society.
The real cost of liberal lies about race over the last 50 years isn’t just the damage it has done to blacks. The real cost is the alienation that it has caused among whites. What were “fringe movements” 50 years ago are growing in strength every day.
The “white nationalist movement” isn’t getting stronger because of the little Gaede sisters or talking-heads like David Duke. They’re getting stronger because of stupid white liberals, racist Mexicans, groups like MECHA and La Raza, racist blacks and racist black (so-called) leaders like Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Louis Farrakhan, and issues like Affirmative Action and black on white crime.
Ignore the truth at your own peril. What WAS once a fringe is no longer a fringe. The Gaede sisters represent a growing power in American politics.
And it’s a dangerous one because history tells us that you haven’t seen ANGER until you’ve seen angry white men fighting for what they believe.[/quote]
What do you do for a living?
What do I do? I’m currently writing the fourth part to the Malleus Maleficarum.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
But then again, changing how people think is what has been the lefts agenda for years.
Dumbest comment all day. What exactly are censorship and moral laws aimed at? I am all for hate crimes being distinguished because some of them have been truly horrible. If a man kills someone else just because of their skin color or their sexual preference, why would anyone be against them receiving a harsher penalty?
[/quote]
Tell that to the family of a loved one who was killed for his money and the guy gets lesser punishment than the hate crime guy who did the same thing.
You see Pro, the idea behind justice is that IT IS JUST FOR ALL! You kill someone and the penalty some be the same. If not, it is not just.
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
But then again, changing how people think is what has been the lefts agenda for years.
Dumbest comment all day. What exactly are censorship and moral laws aimed at? I am all for hate crimes being distinguished because some of them have been truly horrible. If a man kills someone else just because of their skin color or their sexual preference, why would anyone be against them receiving a harsher penalty?
Tell that to the family of a loved one who was killed for his money and the guy gets lesser punishment than the hate crime guy who did the same thing.
You see Pro, the idea behind justice is that IT IS JUST FOR ALL! You kill someone and the penalty some be the same. If not, it is not just.
[/quote]
Could you show specific instances where someone is killed and they are set free simply because it wasn’t a hate crime? Getting life compared to getting life+20 years doesn’t count.
[quote]JJJJ wrote:
Two truths that I want to share.
The first is that it never ceases to amze me just how much bullshit people are willing to accept when talking about race. “Blacks have not realized the American Dream because of slavery and Jim Crow,” is one example that comes to mind.
That’s a complete load of crap. If it was true, then the black family would be stronger now than it was 50 years ago (it isn’t). Black illegitimacy rates would be lower now than 50 years ago (they’re not). The black crime rate would be lower now than it was 50 years ago (it isn’t). The FACT is that in some ways blacks have benefited from the end of slavery and Jim Crow . . . and in other ways their circumstances have gotten worse!
Now, logically, that might suggest that maybe the REAL problem with blacks is their inability to handle freedom and self-determination. (Take one look around the world. Every country run by blacks is a disaster.) So maybe blacks don’t function well in modern society. If so, then that can all be fixed. But we can’t even begin to fix the problem because WE’RE NOT ALLOWED TO TALK ABOUT IT.
So we ignore study after study which shows that blacks are different than whites physically, and generally have lower IQs as a population. We ignore studies that tell us that blacks have higher rates of testosterone which makes them more aggessive. We ignore population studies which suggest that blacks and whites follow different modes of child rearing.
But ignorance is only the tip of the iceberg. Some academics have gone the Afrocentric route and made up a lot of lies about black inventors (who according to some racist black websites appear to have invented every single thing currently used in America). Or they’ve made up a false history of Africa (“great wondrous empires” when in reality Africans never got around to inventing an alphabet). Or the NAACP sets up shop in Hollywwod and makes sure that every TV show has a quota of blacks acting in positions of power (which is a complete fantasy).
In short, we’d rather IGNORE REAL DIFFERENCES and LIE about them than examine them and figure out how to live together despite them.
And this brings me to my second “truth:” That the little singing Nazis represent a SUBSTANTIAL number of Americans who are sick and tired of the bullshit and want no more part of an integrated society.
The real cost of liberal lies about race over the last 50 years isn’t just the damage it has done to blacks. The real cost is the alienation that it has caused among whites. What were “fringe movements” 50 years ago are growing in strength every day.
The “white nationalist movement” isn’t getting stronger because of the little Gaede sisters or talking-heads like David Duke. They’re getting stronger because of stupid white liberals, racist Mexicans, groups like MECHA and La Raza, racist blacks and racist black (so-called) leaders like Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Louis Farrakhan, and issues like Affirmative Action and black on white crime.
Ignore the truth at your own peril. What WAS once a fringe is no longer a fringe. The Gaede sisters represent a growing power in American politics.
And it’s a dangerous one because history tells us that you haven’t seen ANGER until you’ve seen angry white men fighting for what they believe.[/quote]
How come people are always scientifically testing the black race? And why are we always the control to which everyone else is compared to? I get so sick of hearing biological reasons for why black people excel at sports, ex. I had Indian and White friends tell me that the reason I had more “hops” than them was because black people had an extra tendon in their knee\leg…but hey maybe I’m wrong…
And black people in positions of power is a complete fantasy?
And I’d rather you - and in you I mean white people since I assume that’s whom you’re referring to - didn’t fix the problem. Since we’re all generalizing here, from a historical perspective when white people “fix” things that usually involves the mass exploitation and murder of other people who don’t fit their preconceived notions of how life is supposed to be lived.
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
But then again, changing how people think is what has been the lefts agenda for years.
Dumbest comment all day. What exactly are censorship and moral laws aimed at? I am all for hate crimes being distinguished because some of them have been truly horrible. If a man kills someone else just because of their skin color or their sexual preference, why would anyone be against them receiving a harsher penalty?
Tell that to the family of a loved one who was killed for his money and the guy gets lesser punishment than the hate crime guy who did the same thing.
You see Pro, the idea behind justice is that IT IS JUST FOR ALL! You kill someone and the penalty some be the same. If not, it is not just.
[/quote]
Motive is a determining factor in deciding just punishment. I.e. accidental death is punished much more severely than intentional, and particularly violent or sadistic crimes are given worse punishments than others. Punishment is also not designed to make family feel better. I think hate crimes are prima facie worse than other crimes, though you are free to disagree.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
But then again, changing how people think is what has been the lefts agenda for years.
Dumbest comment all day. What exactly are censorship and moral laws aimed at? I am all for hate crimes being distinguished because some of them have been truly horrible. If a man kills someone else just because of their skin color or their sexual preference, why would anyone be against them receiving a harsher penalty?
Tell that to the family of a loved one who was killed for his money and the guy gets lesser punishment than the hate crime guy who did the same thing.
You see Pro, the idea behind justice is that IT IS JUST FOR ALL! You kill someone and the penalty some be the same. If not, it is not just.
Could you show specific instances where someone is killed and they are set free simply because it wasn’t a hate crime? Getting life compared to getting life+20 years doesn’t count.[/quote]
How about getting life verses the death penalty. That counts!
[quote]ExNole wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
But then again, changing how people think is what has been the lefts agenda for years.
Dumbest comment all day. What exactly are censorship and moral laws aimed at? I am all for hate crimes being distinguished because some of them have been truly horrible. If a man kills someone else just because of their skin color or their sexual preference, why would anyone be against them receiving a harsher penalty?
Tell that to the family of a loved one who was killed for his money and the guy gets lesser punishment than the hate crime guy who did the same thing.
You see Pro, the idea behind justice is that IT IS JUST FOR ALL! You kill someone and the penalty some be the same. If not, it is not just.
Motive is a determining factor in deciding just punishment. I.e. accidental death is punished much more severely than intentional, and particularly violent or sadistic crimes are given worse punishments than others. Punishment is also not designed to make family feel better. I think hate crimes are prima facie worse than other crimes, though you are free to disagree. [/quote]
You have outlined the very reason why the system is NOT just. There is no way to accurately determine motivation and ones intent. So the punishment is never objectively linked to the crime. It is always subjective and therefore not accurately connected to the crime act.
am i meant to be surprised?
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
How about getting life verses the death penalty. That counts!
[/quote]
O’tay, let’s see some examples where this happens.
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
ExNole wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
But then again, changing how people think is what has been the lefts agenda for years.
Dumbest comment all day. What exactly are censorship and moral laws aimed at? I am all for hate crimes being distinguished because some of them have been truly horrible. If a man kills someone else just because of their skin color or their sexual preference, why would anyone be against them receiving a harsher penalty?
Tell that to the family of a loved one who was killed for his money and the guy gets lesser punishment than the hate crime guy who did the same thing.
You see Pro, the idea behind justice is that IT IS JUST FOR ALL! You kill someone and the penalty some be the same. If not, it is not just.
Motive is a determining factor in deciding just punishment. I.e. accidental death is punished much more severely than intentional, and particularly violent or sadistic crimes are given worse punishments than others. Punishment is also not designed to make family feel better. I think hate crimes are prima facie worse than other crimes, though you are free to disagree.
You have outlined the very reason why the system is NOT just. There is no way to accurately determine motivation and ones intent. So the punishment is never objectively linked to the crime. It is always subjective and therefore not accurately connected to the crime act.
[/quote]
As with every crime, the burden of proof is with the state. No, you cannot ever know another person’s mental states, and no you cannot recreate someone’s motivations, but there are clearly times when the evidence clearly demonstrates crimes motivated by hate and hate alone.
Displaying hate based intent is just as objective as proving insanity or malice. If you’re being strict about objectivity we can only talk about logic, math, and quote Descartes.
That was a total copout.