hate crimes

[TheIceman05 0]

There aren't any "white t-shirt power" groups out there.No t-shirt beating skinheads.The KKK don't rally against t-shirts.The whole "someone who kills because they don't like a t-shirt" argument is fcking stupid.The law is designed to target certain groups, that need targeting.

I think you miss the point of the analogy: namely that killing someone because of t-shirt color is silly, and arbitrary. On the other hand, people perceive killing someone due to his religion as more significantly bad.I only ask why. Of course there aren't WhiteTshirt hate groups out there. That's the point. If there WERE, would that mean it's okay to punish them more for their crimes, because of their blatant hatred of white t-shirts?I am bothered by the idea that hate crime legislation leaves us unable to draw ANY conclusion besides, "It is not okay to hate Jews" or "It is not okay to hate Christians" or "it is not okay to hate gays."I don't hate any of the above groups, but who says I'm not allowed to hate whomever I damed well please. It's ugly, but it's my right.Right?Ice

[Fphillips 0]

Iceman, are you a lawyer?

Depends on wich Iceman is posting, there's like five of them. This one is pro-death penalty I think. j/k

[Spademan 94]

There aren't any "white t-shirt power" groups out there.No t-shirt beating skinheads.The KKK don't rally against t-shirts.The whole "someone who kills because they don't like a t-shirt" argument is fcking stupid.The law is designed to target certain groups, that need targeting.

I think you miss the point of the analogy: namely that killing someone because of t-shirt color is silly, and arbitrary. On the other hand, people perceive killing someone due to his religion as more significantly bad.I only ask why. Of course there aren't WhiteTshirt hate groups out there. That's the point. If there WERE, would that mean it's okay to punish them more for their crimes, because of their blatant hatred of white t-shirts?I am bothered by the idea that hate crime legislation leaves us unable to draw ANY conclusion besides, "It is not okay to hate Jews" or "It is not okay to hate Christians" or "it is not okay to hate gays."I don't hate any of the above groups, but who says I'm not allowed to hate whomever I damed well please. It's ugly, but it's my right.Right?Ice

Naw, I saw the point.My point was, it fails.Groups of skinheads are more dangerous than a single weirdo that beats up people with white t-shirts.It doesn't say you can't hate any particular group, it's saying that if you did, you and any ingorant POS like you (and I don't mean you) decides to commit a crime against one of these groups, you pay a bigger penalty.

[Dirtydutch 8]

Groups of skinheads are more dangerous than a single weirdo that beats up people with white t-shirts.It doesn't say you can't hate any particular group, it's saying that if you did, you and any ingorant POS like you (and I don't mean you) decides to commit a crime against one of these groups, you pay a bigger penalty.But a single violent racist is no more dangerous than a violent tshirt hater. A large, organized group of impartial, violent people would be just as dangerous as the KKK in their heyday. By that reasoning, wouldn’t stiffer penalties for larger, better-organized groups of criminals make more sense?

[Spademan 94]

But a single violent racist is no more dangerous than a violent tshirt hater.

You people suck at logic.Yes, he is more dangerous, by virtue of potential.When you have a number of like minded groups out there who think like you, you are far more likely to be recruited into one of such groups, form one of such groups , read about and be inspired by such a group, have been raised or brainwashed or conditioned by such a group... and on and on.This is so stupid, I digress, fight for the rights of skinheads, the klux and "individual racists or homophobes" to jump nigg's and jews and gays without extra punishment if you want, unlikely your folly will affect me.

[Pupsta 0]

it's fine if you give a stiffer penalty if a known KKK member goes out and kills a black guy...it's not fine if i walk into a crowd and kill a jew and get a stiffer penalty than if i kill someone that's not a jew.if it's a crime that was *likely* to be inspired by hatred of that group, fine, double the penalty. but if you tack on stiffer penalties just because that person happened to be a 'minority' it is wrong

[Hobbes 1]

But a single violent racist is no more dangerous than a violent tshirt hater.

You people suck at logic.Yes, he is more dangerous, by virtue of potential.When you have a number of like minded groups out there who think like you, you are far more likely to be recruited into one of such groups, form one of such groups , read about and be inspired by such a group, have been raised or brainwashed or conditioned by such a group... and on and on.This is so stupid, I digress, fight for the rights of skinheads, the klux and "individual racists or homophobes" to jump nigg's and jews and gays without extra punishment if you want, unlikely your folly will affect me.

It's really not fighting for the rights of skinheads, etc. It's debating whether hate crime legislation might take us down the slippery slope of being punished for what you are thinking. I'd like to stay away from having "thought police." Whether hate crime laws qualify is what is being debated, nobody is defending the KKK of their actions.

[Dirtydutch 8]

But a single violent racist is no more dangerous than a violent tshirt hater.

You people suck at logic.Yes, he is more dangerous, by virtue of potential.When you have a number of like minded groups out there who think like you, you are far more likely to be recruited into one of such groups, form one of such groups , read about and be inspired by such a group, have been raised or brainwashed or conditioned by such a group... and on and on.This is so stupid, I digress, fight for the rights of skinheads, the klux and "individual racists or homophobes" to jump nigg's and jews and gays without extra punishment if you want, unlikely your folly will affect me.

So you think people who are “dangerous, by virtue of potential” should be punished for their assumed future crimes? You can’t punish people for their motive, and you can’t punish people for crimes you feel they could commit. Just the quote “dangerous, by virtue of potential” rings with a spooky, Orwellian quality.

[Spademan 94]

So you think people who are “dangerous, by virtue of potential” should be punished for their assumed future crimes? You can’t punish people for their motive, and you can’t punish people for crimes you feel they could commit. Just the quote “dangerous, by virtue of potential” rings with a spooky, Orwellian quality.

No, read carefully.Being punished extra for a certain "crime" is not being punished extra for "assumed future crimes".Huge difference there, and it not 1994 in nature.Hitler would love this "debate".

[Dirtydutch 8]

So you think people who are “dangerous, by virtue of potential” should be punished for their assumed future crimes? You can’t punish people for their motive, and you can’t punish people for crimes you feel they could commit. Just the quote “dangerous, by virtue of potential” rings with a spooky, Orwellian quality.

No, read carefully.Being punished extra for a certain "crime" is not being punished extra for "assumed future crimes".Huge difference there, and it not 1994 in nature.Hitler would love this "debate".

But you ARE saying that they should be punished more severely for the crime they DID commit, because you feel they’re more capable of future crimes?The 1994 thing was a joke, right? I wouldn't ask but this IS the internet.

[Spademan 94]

But you ARE saying that they should be punished more severely for the crime they DID commit, because you feel they’re more capable of future crimes?The 1994 thing was a joke, right? I wouldn't ask but this IS the internet.

Yes, 1994 was a jopke.As for the rest of it, I'm not explaining any further.Logic and reason are your friends.

[Dirtydutch 8]

Logic and reason are your friends.Poor Smash analog.

[Spademan 94]

Logic and reason are your friends.Poor Smash analog.

I don't know what this means.an·a·logue also an·a·log Audio pronunciation of "analog" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-lôg, -lg)n. 1. Something that bears an analogy to something else: Surimi is marketed as an analogue of crabmeat. 2. Biology. An organ or structure that is similar in function to one in another kind of organism but is of dissimilar evolutionary origin. 3. Chemistry. A structural derivative of a parent compound that often differs from it by a single element.adj. 1. often analog Of, relating to, or being a device in which data are represented by continuously variable, measurable, physical quantities, such as length, width, voltage, or pressure. 2. often analog Computer Science. Of or relating to an analog computer.If you're saying that is "an analogy to smash", which is the closest thing I can imagine, it makes no sense still.If you were trying to say I'm trying to be like smash, it still makes no sense, because I am superior to smash.

[Dirtydutch 8]

It was supposed to mean that it was a Smash-like thing to say, but it was a joke, regardless.(You can tell by the smiley face )

[Longshanks 0]

hate crime laws are the stupidist laws since gun control and welfare lawsbig government sucks