The Conservative Cave
Current Events => The DUmpster => Topic started by: CactusCarlos on April 10, 2008, 08:04:10 PM
-
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3262106
The threat of fundamentalism
Posted by Baby Snooks on Thu Apr-10-08 12:29 AM
The same threat exists here. We just don't like to think about it. But it can happen here. It was not that long ago that many states sentenced homosexuals to prison just for being homosexual. Louisiana still uses a similar law to sentence homosexuals and other "deviants" to life in prison. One of the things the Supreme Court didn't address with regard to sodomy laws. And while the Supreme Court struck down sodomy laws, in most of the states that had them they are still on the books. Just in case. Just in case states write new laws that discriminate against everyone and the Supreme Court rules that since "equal under the law" applies, sodomy laws are once again just fine. Of course they will not be applied equally. And we will be right back where we were. With the government peeking in bedroom windows again. Clarence Thomas made reference to the right to privacy. Which Antonin Scalia took issue with.
Our sodomy laws used the same "public morals" standards as Egypt does although in Egypt it is more a matter of the government pandering to the fundamentalists rather than the fundamentalists dictating to the government. The Louisiana law still does. Most of the homosexuals arrested in Egypt have "congregated" and were not arrested as a result of "bedroom" raids. The only country that actually invades bedrooms to my knowledge is Iran and even suspicion of being homosexual in Iran is enough to have someone arrested and beheaded which is the punishment in Iran. The same brutality is what awaits Iraq. Thanks to the Bushes.
There is debate since the Q'uran of course refers to the right of men to have concubines and slaves and eunuchs. And the eunuchs weren't meant to just stand around looking pretty. The debate centers around public behavior versus private behavior. Although in some of the Islamic countries even debating it will get you hauled into court and possibly sent to prison.
And it's just as bad for women. In Iran, a man does not need a witness to make an accusation of immorality against a woman. A woman needs two witnesses to make an accusation of immorality against a man.
Religious extremism (which fundy-ism is) is a mental disorder and the victims should be
Posted by bean fidhleir on Thu Apr-10-08 07:56 AM
diagnosed and treated, while being prevented from harming the people around them.
-
Homosexual / Lesbian / Liberal rule #1:
Never accept responsibility for anything that can be blamed on your victimization.
-
DUmmie homos don't know how well off they have it until they've walked a mile in an Iranian homo's crocs.
-
But that's a Muslim... aw, f*ck it.
They won't know the difference till you hear "Die INFIDEL!!", but by then, all you can do is look up at your body from the floor.
*Red*
-
The same threat exists here. We just don't like to think about it. But it can happen here. It was not that long ago that many states sentenced homosexuals to prison just for being homosexual. Louisiana still uses a similar law to sentence homosexuals and other "deviants" to life in prison.
Isn't that kinda like throwing Br'er Rabbit in the briar patch? Right or wrong, it just seems counerproductive.
-
Some act as though the death penalty for homosexuals is a bad idea.... :censored:
-
Some act as though the death penalty for homosexuals is a bad idea.... :censored:
You're thinking homosexuals should be killed? :whatever:
-
Some act as though the death penalty for homosexuals is a bad idea.... :censored:
Yes... civilized people.
-
Some act as though the death penalty for homosexuals is a bad idea.... :censored:
You're thinking homosexuals should be killed? :whatever:
In some cases.
-
In some cases.
Whatever you say, Mr. Bondadinejad.
-
Some act as though the death penalty for homosexuals is a bad idea.... :censored:
You're thinking homosexuals should be killed? :whatever:
In some cases.
And what would those cases be? For child rape, yes. That's about the only instance I can think of.
I don't like the agenda being forced on children. Live and let live.
-
And what would those cases be? For child rape, yes. That's about the only instance I can think of.
Um... If you're in favor of executing homosexuals who rape children, then shouldn't you also be in favor of executing heterosexuals who rape children?
-
Um... If you're in favor of executing homosexuals who rape children, then shouldn't you also be in favor of executing heterosexuals who rape children?
Not a problem. Next?
-
Some act as though the death penalty for homosexuals is a bad idea.... :censored:
Actually they seem to be pretty good at executing themselves without the rest of us getting involved....
doc
-
And what would those cases be? For child rape, yes. That's about the only instance I can think of.
Um... If you're in favor of executing homosexuals who rape children, then shouldn't you also be in favor of executing heterosexuals who rape children?
Yep, I'm for that. And for regular serial predator rapists too.
Rape used to be a capital offense in some states until that idiot Kinsey published his fabricated report.
-
Some act as though the death penalty for homosexuals is a bad idea.... :censored:
Actually they seem to be pretty good at executing themselves without the rest of us getting involved....
doc
I wish that a portion of those billions for aids was funneled into cancer research.
-
I wish that a portion of those billions for aids was funneled into cancer research.
I think that is what annoys me the most about the homo agenda, they have whined and moaned until AIDS receives more research funding than all of the other deadly diseases combined, and really for what??? So that they can have promiscuous homosexual sex without risking death......that's all
AIDS is the ONLY disease that can be completely wiped out in one generation if certain groups modified their behaviour.....but NOOOO....we can't have that......
doc
-
And what would those cases be? For child rape, yes. That's about the only instance I can think of.
Um... If you're in favor of executing homosexuals who rape children, then shouldn't you also be in favor of executing heterosexuals who rape children?
No because heterosexuals are better and more moral than you and your homo companions.
Sorry, you cannot fight nature and win.
-
No because heterosexuals are better and more moral than you and your homo companions.
Sorry, you cannot fight nature and win.
So, you're saying that heterosexuals who rape children should be punished less harshly than homosexuals who rape children?
-
And what would those cases be? For child rape, yes. That's about the only instance I can think of.
Um... If you're in favor of executing homosexuals who rape children, then shouldn't you also be in favor of executing heterosexuals who rape children?
Yep, I'm for that. And for regular serial predator rapists too.
Rape used to be a capital offense in some states until that idiot Kinsey published his fabricated report.
Shhh...if not for Kinsey, the homo's perverted mentor, they would still be butt****ing in the closet rather than on a street corner in San Francisco during their queer sodomy pride parades...in front of their court mandated trophy children they have dressed up in S&M attire.
-
No because heterosexuals are better and more moral than you and your homo companions.
Sorry, you cannot fight nature and win.
So, you're saying that heterosexuals who rape children should be punished less harshly than homosexuals who rape children?
Sure, why not?
-
No because heterosexuals are better and more moral than you and your homo companions.
Sorry, you cannot fight nature and win.
So, you're saying that heterosexuals who rape children should be punished less harshly than homosexuals who rape children?
Makes about as much sense as the concept of hate crimes, doesn't it?
-
Sure, why not?
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.overview.html
Your last name isn't Phelps, is it?
-
you are a ******* idiot
edit- this is for carlos patriotgame and not TNO.
this time
edit no. 2-
shit. too many idiots.
-
No because heterosexuals are better and more moral than you and your homo companions.
Sorry, you cannot fight nature and win.
So, you're saying that heterosexuals who rape children should be punished less harshly than homosexuals who rape children?
Makes about as much sense as the concept of hate crimes, doesn't it?
This is where I was heading but TNOHomo is a little thick.
-
Sure, why not?
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.overview.html
Your last name isn't Phelps, is it?
Project much?
Snarkle....
-
Some act as though the death penalty for homosexuals is a bad idea.... :censored:
Whose sock puppet are you?
-
Some act as though the death penalty for homosexuals is a bad idea.... :censored:
Whose sock puppet are you?
I suspect that Bondai is, in fact, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, President of Iran.
-
This is where I was heading but TNOHomo is a little thick.
Hint: Carlos is telling you that what you posted doesn't make sense.
-
you are a ******* idiot
edit- this is for carlos patriotgame and not TNO.
this time
edit no. 2-
shit. too many idiots.
Thank you! I have now finally received the recognition I have longed for my entire life.
Queers not withstanding.
-
This is where I was heading but TNOHomo is a little thick.
Hint: Carlos is telling you that what you posted doesn't make sense.
Ah..yea....like I said, you are a little thick...
-
DUmmie homos don't know how well off they have it until they've walked a mile in an Iranian homo's crocs.
:rotf:
-
And what would those cases be? For child rape, yes. That's about the only instance I can think of.
Um... If you're in favor of executing homosexuals who rape children, then shouldn't you also be in favor of executing heterosexuals who rape children?
Let's go back to the question, nocturnally foul one. The question was aimed at executing homosexuals--only. Nothing was mentioned about heterosexuals who rape children (henceforth known as "wastes of sperm," or WOS). However, now that you mention it, being the dad of a 5 1/2 month-old little girl, if anyone were to touch her, I would want the perv executed--even if I had to do it myself. (I'm kinda vengeful that way.)
-
I'll just state my position on the matter. Gay Marriage? No.****ing.Way. Civil unions? Not a problem; knock yourself out. I do, however, think the government should get out of the damn marriage business to begin with. The Fair Tax would alleviate a lot of that shit.
What I DO have a problem with is the movement. Yes, we spend WAY more money proportionally on AIDs research than we do research towards cancer, diabetes, and other diseases. This is bullshit and brought about by a radical, left-wing ideology. AIDS is preventable. I'd also like for them to stop throwing that shit up in my face. Gay Pride parades? I DO NOT GIVE A ****! You're gay. Who cares. Sit down and shut the **** about it already. You want to be taken seriously? Stop parading your assless chaps down Peachtree in Atlanta. You're showing to the world that your culture is one based in hedonism and freakishness. I have two friends who are gay. They live in my neighborhood. They've been together for about 20 years. You would NEVER be able to tell they were gay because it's not something they feel they have to express to get attention. To them they're gay, they live their lives, and they don't give a damn what anyone thinks. If most gay people felt this way, there would BE no problem.
All in all, you wanna be gay, fine. No problem. I do not care. Now stop forcing it onto me as if I'm SUPPOSED to care.
P.S. no way in hell would Brokedick Mountain have been given an Oscar if it hadn't been about to gay Sheepboys, turning it into a rally cry for the left.
-
Let's go back to the question, nocturnally foul one. The question was aimed at executing homosexuals--only. Nothing was mentioned about heterosexuals who rape children (henceforth known as "wastes of sperm," or WOS). However, now that you mention it, being the dad of a 5 1/2 month-old little girl, if anyone were to touch her, I would want the perv executed--even if I had to do it myself. (I'm kinda vengeful that way.)
I just wanted to make sure you weren't arguing that a homosexual and a heterosexual who commit the same kind of crime should be punished differently. That would be un-American.
-
I just wanted to make sure you weren't arguing that a homosexual and a heterosexual who commit the same kind of crime should be punished differently. That would be un-American.
Ok, someone hinted on it earlier. Are you in/not in favor of hate crimes legislation?
Yes. You are being set up for something.
-
I just wanted to make sure you weren't arguing that a homosexual and a heterosexual who commit the same kind of crime should be punished differently. That would be un-American.
Ok, someone hinted on it earlier. Are you in/not in favor of hate crimes legislation?
Yes. You are being set up for something.
(*popcorn*)
-
Ok, someone hinted on it earlier. Are you in/not in favor of hate crimes legislation?
Yes. You are being set up for something.
I support hate crimes laws which increase the penalty for criminal acts which are proven to have been committed with the intent to terrorize or harrass not just primary victims but an entire segment of the population.
-
I support hate crimes legislation which increases the penalty for criminal acts which are proven to have been committed with the intent to terrorize or harrass not just primary victims but an entire segment of the population.
So, I'm hanging out with my friend, drinking a few beers, and someone comes by and sprays us with a friggin' MAC-10 while yelling gay slurs, killing is both. My friend's life was more valuable than mine? What the ****? They get more time for killing him than they do me? I guess they didn't hate me as much, right? Does that make me any Damn deader? That's the problem with you liberals, MOST of your positions are based in inconsistency.
-
Ok, someone hinted on it earlier. Are you in/not in favor of hate crimes legislation?
Yes. You are being set up for something.
I support hate crimes laws which increase the penalty for criminal acts which are proven to have been committed with the intent to terrorize or harrass not just primary victims but an entire segment of the population.
So if I whack you, a white boy, then I should be punished. But if I whack your best buddy, a black dude, I should get MORE punishment? Your life is worth less than your black buddy's?
What if I was like you and hated whites? Should I get additional punishment for my (well, your) racial hatred of whites?
-
So, I'm hanging out with my friend, drinking a few beers, and someone comes by and sprays us with a friggin' MAC-10 while yelling gay slurs, killing is both. My friend's life was more valuable than mine? What the ****? They get more time for killing him than they do me? I guess they didn't hate me as much, right? Does that make me any Damn deader? That's the problem with you liberals, MOST of your positions are based in inconsistency.
If evidence is found that the people who shot at you did so because they wanted to terrorize gays in your neighborhood, then they should be punished more harshly than if they had simply shot people at random.
Think of hate crimes as terrorism. Consider the 9/11 attacks... The intent of the 9/11 attacks wasn't just to kill Americans and to destroy buildings in the US. The intent of the 9/11 attacks was to kill Americans, to destroy buildings in the US, and to terrorize the American populace.
-
So if I whack you, a white boy, then I should be punished. But if I whack your best buddy, a black dude, I should get MORE punishment? Your life is worth less than your black buddy's?
If evidence is found that the murder you committed was committed with the intent of terrorizing a segment of the population, then you should be punished for the murder and for terrorizing the population.
-
If evidence is found that the people who shot at you did so because they wanted to terrorize gays in your neighborhood, then they should be punished more harshly than if they had simply shot people at random.
Think of hate crimes as terrorism. Consider the 9/11 attacks... The intent of the 9/11 attacks wasn't just to kill Americans and destroy US buildings. The intent of the 9/11 attacks was to kill Americans, destroy buildings, and terrorize the American populace.
No -- American Jurisprudence says that people are punished for their crimes, not what they were thinking at the time of those crimes. The only time the State should try to read the mind of the perpetrators is to determine premeditation. Setting up a booby-trap is clear proof. It says nothing about my feeling about the victim.
So, you think the State should read minds when doling out punishment? Like I said, you hate yourself and all whiteys -- does that mean you should get special augmentation if you kill a white person?
-
in·con·sis·ten·cy
n. pl. in·con·sis·ten·cies
1. The state or quality of being inconsistent.
2. Something inconsistent: many inconsistencies in your proposal.
rick ja·mes·ism
n. pl. rick ja·mes·isms
1. The state or quality of being inconsistent due to cocaine addiction.
2. Something inconsistent, ghetto-style: I just wanted to make sure you weren't arguing that a homosexual and a heterosexual who commit the same kind of crime should be punished differently. That would be un-American. I support hate crimes laws which increase the penalty for criminal acts which are proven to have been committed with the intent to terrorize or harrass not just primary victims but an entire segment of the population.
:stupid:
-
So if I whack you, a white boy, then I should be punished. But if I whack your best buddy, a black dude, I should get MORE punishment? Your life is worth less than your black buddy's?
If evidence is found that the murder you committed was committed with the intent of terrorizing a segment of the population, then you should be punished for the murder and for terrorizing the population.
That is a non-answer. I keep forgetting how young you are. If I kill a black person, how do you know if I killed him because he was black or dor some other reason? Would you use my posts against Reverend Wright as "proof" I "hate blacks?"
If I use your criteria, I need to actually attack a LOT of people to "terrorize a segment of the population." Should the VA snipers have been prosecuted for targeting white people?
Also, it would mean a single incident should NEVER be prosecuted as a hate crime -- right?
-
If evidence is found that the murder you committed was committed with the intent of terrorizing a segment of the population, then you should be punished for the murder and for terrorizing the population.
Wrong. You think you can kill someone without hate? ALL murders are based on hate. Hate-crime legislation is an emotionally-driven crock of shit perpetrated onto the American populace by liberals wanting to stay in power. Murder is ****ing murder is ****ing murder.
-
No -- American Jurisprudence says that people are punished for their crimes, not what they were thinking at the time of those crimes. The only time the State should try to read the mind of the perpetrators is to determine premeditation. Setting up a booby-trap is clear proof. It says nothing about my feeling about the victim.
Huh? I'm not arguing that courts should attempt to read minds. What I'm arguing is that if evidence is found that a criminal act was committed with the intent of terrorizing a segment of the population, then the criminal who committed the act should be punished for it and for terrorizing the population. Two crimes... two punishments.
-
If I use your criteria, I need to actually attack a LOT of people to "terrorize a segment of the population." Should the VA snipers have been prosecuted for targeting white people?
If evidence is found that the VA snipers targeted whites with the intent of terrorizing whites, then their crimes should be prosecuted as hate crimes.
-
No -- American Jurisprudence says that people are punished for their crimes, not what they were thinking at the time of those crimes. The only time the State should try to read the mind of the perpetrators is to determine premeditation. Setting up a booby-trap is clear proof. It says nothing about my feeling about the victim.
Huh? I'm not arguing that courts should attempt to read minds. What I'm arguing is that if evidence is found that a criminal act was committed with the intent of terrorizing a segment of the population, then the criminal who committed the act should be punished for it and for terrorizing the population. Two crimes... two punishments.
So, define "terrorizing a segment of the population." Should all gangs be prosecuted for hate crimes? They terrorize an entire segment of their communities.
And I guess that means you agree that a single act, by your (rather cute) definitions, can never be a Hare Crime, since it cannot (again by definition) be perpetrated against antire segment of the population.
Dude, liberals like you make all our lives easier.
-
So, I'm hanging out with my friend, drinking a few beers, and someone comes by and sprays us with a friggin' MAC-10 while yelling gay slurs, killing is both. My friend's life was more valuable than mine? What the ****? They get more time for killing him than they do me? I guess they didn't hate me as much, right? Does that make me any Damn deader? That's the problem with you liberals, MOST of your positions are based in inconsistency.
If evidence is found that the people who shot at you did so because they wanted to terrorize gays in your neighborhood, then they should be punished more harshly than if they had simply shot people at random.
Think of hate crimes as terrorism. Consider the 9/11 attacks... The intent of the 9/11 attacks wasn't just to kill Americans and destroy US buildings. The intent of the 9/11 attacks was to kill Americans, destroy buildings, and terrorize the American populace.
Okay, white, straight guy has a wife and 2 kids...gay guy is between lovers (this is NOT just theoretical, my best friend is gay and he and my husband have gone out for a beer before). Those 2 children (in my case boys and I don't care how cliche you think it is, boys need their father) have just lost their daddy. BUT, the loss of children isn't as grave, significant, tragic than how it will make a certain community of ADULTS feel? Seriously? Nice value system there.
Cindie
-
Wrong. You think you can kill someone without hate? ALL murders are based on hate. Hate-crime legislation is an emotionally-driven crock of shit perpetrated onto the American populace by liberals wanting to stay in power. Murder is ******* murder is ******* murder.
Huh? What gives you the idea that all murders are the result of hate? Some murders are committed purely for financial gain.
-
Wrong. You think you can kill someone without hate? ALL murders are based on hate. Hate-crime legislation is an emotionally-driven crock of shit perpetrated onto the American populace by liberals wanting to stay in power. Murder is ******* murder is ******* murder.
Huh? What gives you the idea that all murders are the result of hate? Some murders are committed purely for financial gain.
So, we are back to the State's onus to read minds.
You need to keep up to your backpedaling.
-
So, define "terrorizing a segment of the population." Should all gangs be prosecuted for hate crimes? They terrorize an entire segment of their communities.
If a gang commits a crime which is found to have been committed with the intent to terrorize or harrass more than just the primary victims, then of course the crime should be treated as a hate crime.
And I guess that means you agree that a single act, by your (rather cute) definitions, can never be a Hare Crime, since it cannot (again by definition) be perpetrated against antire segment of the population.
Huh? I don't understand what you're saying.
-
Huh? I'm not arguing that courts should attempt to read minds. What I'm arguing is that if evidence is found that a criminal act was committed with the intent of terrorizing a segment of the population, then the criminal who committed the act should be punished for it and for terrorizing the population. Two crimes... two punishments.
So, murder is already illegal. You're saying it should be illegal to hate someone or some group now? Yes, you are bartering in thought crimes.
-
If evidence is found that the VA snipers targeted whites with the intent of terrorizing whites, then their crimes should be prosecuted as hate crimes.
...but they weren't. I don't think there's been a black person to date convicted of hate crimes legislation.
They should be found guilty of murder and sentenced to die. All the other bullshit isn't necessary and only intended to confuse the DumbMasses.
-
Huh? What gives you the idea that all murders are the result of hate? Some murders are committed purely for financial gain.
Does it make the victim any less dead?
-
So, define "terrorizing a segment of the population." Should all gangs be prosecuted for hate crimes? They terrorize an entire segment of their communities.
If a gang commits a crime which is found to have been committed with the intent to terrorize or harrass more than just the primary victims, then of course the crime should be treated as a hate crime.
And I guess that means you agree that a single act, by your (rather cute) definitions, can never be a Hare Crime, since it cannot (again by definition) be perpetrated against antire segment of the population.
Huh? I don't understand what you're saying.
So what are you going to use as "proof" of intent? I'm serious...running into a bar saying "black guys suck!" and letting loose with a spray of gunfire MIGHT (by whatever definition YOU'VE constructed)...or maybe he's a distraught gay man whose black lover just left him and doesn't really hate blacks at all. Or maybe he is a secret racist and his boyfriend left him because he was tired of feeling like he was living with Robert Byrd's son. How do we "know"?
Cindie
-
So, define "terrorizing a segment of the population." Should all gangs be prosecuted for hate crimes? They terrorize an entire segment of their communities.
If a gang commits a crime which is found to have been committed with the intent to terrorize or harrass more than just the primary victims, then of course the crime should be treated as a hate crime.
So Black on Black crime is a Hate Crime? And, ow that we know it isn't racial, how does this change the underlying act?
And I guess that means you agree that a single act, by your (rather cute) definitions, can never be a Hare Crime, since it cannot (again by definition) be perpetrated against antire segment of the population.
Huh? I don't understand what you're saying.
Well, I mis-spelled Hare-crimes (which we leave for Mrs. Snuggles). But what I am saying is that your definition (which matches no known H/C legal definitions) is that a crime against an entire segment of the population is a "Hate Crime." Leaving out the complete inability for you or anyone to define "segment of the population," this also would suggest an attack on an individual cannot be an attack on an "entire segment of the population." Q.E.D. a single attack cannot be a Hate Crime by your (flawed) definition.
I know you are a child and are learning, so I appreciate these "learning moment" opportunities.
-
So, murder is already illegal. You're saying it should be illegal to hate someone or some group now? Yes, you are bartering in thought crimes.
No, I'm not saying that hate or even expressions of hate should be illegal. What I'm saying is if a criminal act is committed with the intent of terrorizing or harrassing a segment of the population, then the judge presiding over the prosecution of that crime should take the intent of the crime into consideration when determining the punishment.
If a group of skinheads spraypaint the words "Jews must die" on a Jewish family's home, should the skinheads be prosecuted for only vandalism? Of course not. The skinheads should be prosecuted for vandalism and for making threats against a segment of the population.
-
If a group of skinheads spraypaint the words "Jews must die" on a Jewish family's home, should the skinheads be prosecuted for only vandalism? Of course not. The skinheads should be prosecuted for vandalism and for making threats against a segment of the population.
No, they should be prosecuted for making terroristic threats and vandalism. Not ****ing Hate Crimes legislation bullshit.
-
So what are you going to use as "proof" of intent? I'm serious...running into a bar saying "black guys suck!" and letting loose with a spray of gunfire MIGHT (by whatever definition YOU'VE constructed)...or maybe he's a distraught gay man whose black lover just left him and doesn't really hate blacks at all. Or maybe he is a secret racist and his boyfriend left him because he was tired of feeling like he was living with Robert Byrd's son. How do we "know"?
Cindie
Courts have various ways of determining intent... testimony... hard evidence... circumstantial evidence.
-
No, they should be prosecuted for making terroristic threats and vandalism. Not ******* Hate Crimes legislation bullshit.
Well, like I wrote earlier, I consider terrorism and hate crimes to be in the same category. A hate crime is simply a subset of terrorism.
-
Well, like I wrote earlier, I consider terrorism and hate crimes to be in the same category. A hate crime is simply a subset of terrorism.
Oh bullshit. It's nothing more than an ploy by the left in this country to make victims out of everyone. There is nothing worse than murder....until f'n liberals started making 30 different terms to describe one f'n crime.
-
If I use your criteria, I need to actually attack a LOT of people to "terrorize a segment of the population." Should the VA snipers have been prosecuted for targeting white people?
If evidence is found that the VA snipers targeted whites with the intent of terrorizing whites, then their crimes should be prosecuted as hate crimes.
hatecrimes are leftist bullshit aimed at criminalizing thought. murderers deserve to die regardless of their motivation.
-
...but they weren't. I don't think there's been a black person to date convicted of hate crimes legislation.
Myth.
9 black youths guilty in Calif. hate-crime attack
Nine of 10 black youths ages 12 to 18 were convicted today of beating three young white women on Halloween in an affluent section of Long Beach, Calif., with eight defendants guilty of a hate crime, the local Press Telegram reports. Long Beach Superior Court Judge Gibson Lee also ruled that five of the nine — eight girls and a boy — had inflicted great bodily harm. The youngest defendant, a 12-year-old girl, was acquitted of all charges.
All 10 were charged with felony assault. The hate-crime "enhancement" resulted from victim and witness accounts that "several youths within a crowd of 20 to 40 people yelled racial slurs as the victims were pelted with newspapers, fruit and pumpkins, then beat to the ground with fists, feet, a skateboard and tree branches," staff writer Tracy Manzer writes.
The nine will be sentenced in several weeks.
http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2007/01/9_black_youths_.html
-
hatecrimes are leftist bullshit aimed at criminalizing thought. murderers deserve to die regardless of their motivation.
If child who has been raped for many years by a parent one day kills that parent, then shouldn't the actions of the parent be a mitigating factor in determining the punishment for the murder?
-
So, murder is already illegal. You're saying it should be illegal to hate someone or some group now? Yes, you are bartering in thought crimes.
No, I'm not saying that hate or even expressions of hate should be illegal. What I'm saying is if a criminal act is committed with the intent of terrorizing or harrassing a segment of the population, then the judge presiding over the prosecution of that crime should take the intent of the crime into consideration when determining the punishment.
If a group of skinheads spraypaint the words "Jews must die" on a Jewish family's home, should the skinheads be prosecuted for only vandalism? Of course not. The skinheads should be prosecuted for vandalism and for making threats against a segment of the population.
Why? What did they do to the rest of the community? They vandalized a single property. They expressed their views. The views may be awful, but unless they were to say in a meaningful way "we will kill all Jews" (which is a separate crime -- "making terrorist treats") then it is a single act crime.
And you still want to punish thought. Which is standard-issue lib-think, because you really want to use the legal and political system to suppress free thinking, since free thinking is the enemy of liberal thinking.
And if a bunch of skin-heads kill a Jewish kid, what should be the punishment? How can you discern the thinking of the perpetrators?
-
hatecrimes are leftist bullshit aimed at criminalizing thought. murderers deserve to die regardless of their motivation.
If child who has been raped for many years by a parent one day kills that parent, the motivation for the murder should not be a mitigating factor? Harsh.
That is an ACTION, not a thought. And we are speaking of enhancement, not mitigation.
Again, as a little child, your strawmen (really, Barbie Ken-men) really don't stand up. You need to learn how to learn.
*pat pat*
-
And if a bunch of skin-heads kill a Jewish kid, what should be the punishment? How can you discern the thinking of the perpetrators?
The intent behind a hate crime is determined in the same way that the intent behind any crime is determined... though an examination of evidence and testimony.
-
That is an ACTION, not a thought. And we are speaking of enhancement, not mitigation.
I know. The hypothetical case I presented was intended only to counter Downing's argument that the motivation behind a murder is irrelevant.
-
The number of CCers ignoring me just went from 5 to 7 as a result of this thread. Fascinating.
-
That is an ACTION, not a thought. And we are speaking of enhancement, not mitigation.
I know. The hypothetical case I presented was intended only to counter Downing's argument that the motivation behind a crime is irrelevant.
It has some relevancy, but your case is lost. To kill someone because of their association with a segment of the population (which you have yet to define) as opposed to kill then because of another reason (up to and including randomness) requires the State to mind read.
-
The number of CCers ignoring me just went from 5 to 7 as a result of this thread. Fascinating.
You are too insignificant to Ignore, trust me.
You have been foolish, but in your defense, I haven't found you to be abusive.
-
Hate crime legislation is wrong. It is tantamount to thought crime and is a very slippery slope. Our legal system does just fine without attaching thought crimes to existing charges. I am against hate crime legislation for the same reasons I am against affirmative action. We should never elevate one segment of the population over the rest. It's all politically correct bullshit.
I can say with certainty that every person I've worked with in law enforcement felt dedicated enough to find, charge and prosecute the offenders regardless of the victim's race, gender or sexual orientation. Violence is violence regardless and the fine men and women who dealt with it everyday will tell you that we don't need hate crime legislation. They are color blind, gender blind, sexual orientation blind, etc...when it comes to bringing justice.
We already have laws in place to deal with the crimes committed. No need to attach hate crime charges. Again, slippery slope.
-
That is an ACTION, not a thought. And we are speaking of enhancement, not mitigation.
I know. The hypothetical case I presented was intended only to counter Downing's argument that the motivation behind a murder is irrelevant.
No my point was the whole concept of hate crimes (and hate speech) is leftist nonsense. It is literally criminalizing thought. People who act on their hatrid for whatever should ultimately be punished for the action, not because they hate whatever they attacked.
-
Hate crime legislation is wrong. It is tantamount to thought crime and is a very slippery slope. Our legal system does just fine without attaching thought crimes to existing charges. I am against hate crime legislation for the same reasons I am against affirmative action. We should never elevate one segment of the population over the rest. It's all politically correct bullshit.
I can say with certainty that every person I've worked with in law enforcement felt dedicated enough to find, charge and prosecute the offenders regardless of the victim's race, gender or sexual orientation. Violence is violence regardless and the fine men and women who dealt with it everyday will tell you that we don't need hate crime legislation. They are color blind, gender blind, sexual orientation blind, etc...when it comes to bringing justice.
We already have laws in place to deal with the crimes committed. No need to attach hate crime charges. Again, slippery slope.
hi-five :)
-
It has some relevancy, but your case is lost. To kill someone because of their association with a segment of the population (which you have yet to define) as opposed to kill then because of another reason (up to and including randomness) requires the State to mind read.
Not true.
Imagine the following scenario...
If a group of white students on trial for a string of beatings against black students are found to have exchanged emails which prove that the students planned the attacks for the purpose of terrorizing blacks students in the school, then no mind reading would be needed to determine the intent of the crime.
Of course, evidence of intent is not always available, but when it is available, it should be considered.
-
The number of CCers ignoring me just went from 5 to 7 as a result of this thread. Fascinating.
why would i ignore you? your stupidity is free comedy entertainment :-)
-
Not true.
Imagine the following scenario...
If a group of white students on trial for a string of beatings against black students are found to have exchanged emails which prove that the students planned the attacks for the purpose of terrorizing blacks students in the school, then no mind reading would be needed to determine the intent of the crime.
Conspiracy and assault and battery. No HCL needs to be applied.
-
That is an ACTION, not a thought. And we are speaking of enhancement, not mitigation.
I know. The hypothetical case I presented was intended only to counter Downing's argument that the motivation behind a murder is irrelevant.
No my point was the whole concept of hate crimes (and hate speech) is leftist nonsense. It is literally criminalizing thought. People who act on their hatrid for whatever should ultimately be punished for the action, not because they hate whatever they attacked.
Exactly. If a person is motivated by hate, it will be presented at trial. Motive is always presented. It's up to the jury to decide the sentence according to established guidelines. They already take "thought crime" into consideration in a roundabout way. Everyone knows that how you come off at trial and how the case is laid out affects your sentence. If you're a hateful person motivated to commit a crime because of the hate, you can bet that will come into play during jury deliberations. It's called throwing the book at you. Happens everyday.
-
hi-five :)
I should get numerous hi-fives just for standing up to all you bitches.
:-)
-
It has some relevancy, but your case is lost. To kill someone because of their association with a segment of the population (which you have yet to define) as opposed to kill then because of another reason (up to and including randomness) requires the State to mind read.
Not true.
Imagine the following scenario...
If a group of white students on trial for a string of beatings against black students are found to have exchanged emails which prove that the students planned the attacks for the purpose of terrorizing blacks students in the school, then no mind reading would be needed to determine the intent of the crime.
Of course, evidence of intent is not always available, but when it is available, it should be considered.
You've never been involved in the legal system have you? Or have you at least watched Court TV? This is standard practice in the justice system.
-
Conspiracy and assault and battery. No HCL needs to be applied.
And what is the conspiracy? The conspiracy is not just to beat up students. The conspiracy is to beat up students and to terrorize a segment of the population in the school.
-
I think you need to bone up on the current legal system TNO. Seriously.
-
If I use your criteria, I need to actually attack a LOT of people to "terrorize a segment of the population." Should the VA snipers have been prosecuted for targeting white people?
If evidence is found that the VA snipers targeted whites with the intent of terrorizing whites, then their crimes should be prosecuted as hate crimes.
When does murder not terrorize?
:whatever:
-
When does murder not terrorize?
:whatever:
Murder terrorizes the family and friends of the victims, but in some cases, murder can terrorize the family and friends of the victims and an entire segment of the population. For instance, lynchings conducted by the KKK terrorized not only the family and friends of those lynched but blacks in general. In other words, people hung in KKK lynchings weren't the only victims of KKK lynchings.
-
If I use your criteria, I need to actually attack a LOT of people to "terrorize a segment of the population." Should the VA snipers have been prosecuted for targeting white people?
If evidence is found that the VA snipers targeted whites with the intent of terrorizing whites, then their crimes should be prosecuted as hate crimes.
When does murder not terrorize?
:whatever:
H5. Murder always terrorizes the community it occurs in.
-
H5. Murder always terrorizes the community it occurs in.
If someone or some group is killing people of only one ethnicity in a community, then who in that community will feel the most terror? Obviously, the people belonging to one ethnic group, the group being targeted, will feel the most terror.
-
H5. Murder always terrorizes the community it occurs in.
If someone or some group is killing people of only one ethnicity in a community, then who in that community will feel the most terror? Obviously, the people belonging to one ethnic group, the group being targeted, will feel the most terror.
that is still no reason for criminalizing thought.
-
If I use your criteria, I need to actually attack a LOT of people to "terrorize a segment of the population." Should the VA snipers have been prosecuted for targeting white people?
If evidence is found that the VA snipers targeted whites with the intent of terrorizing whites, then their crimes should be prosecuted as hate crimes.
When does murder not terrorize?
:whatever:
H5. Murder always terrorizes the community it occurs in.
Except TNO -- his community is only terrorized when.. um.. when people write stuff on walls that threaten them. Yeah, that's it. But if you kill someone and don't let the authorities know, then it is a Hate Crime when -- um, I guess never.
-
HCL's are meant to create an aggravating factor when considering sentencing; but they strike me as extremely redundant and susceptible to abuse.
Conspiracy and other such charges are more than sufficient to aggravate a charge of criminal intent but to say a person was criminal for a thought rather than the action is a danger to liberty. The law has been quite capable for millenia of judging the difference between manslaughter and murder. The motive of murder never mattered as much as the fact that a life was taken with malicious intent. One can be a racist/bigot/sexist/homophobe/democrat but until that person commits a crime they are protected by law. In fact it isn't the racism/bigotry/sexism/homophobia that is the issue it is the violation of society's peace and order that is the crime.
-
Nocturnally foul one (I love Coach's nickname for you!), how 'bout this? This one is from my own experience yesterday. I'm walking up North Pearl Street in Albany on my break, with three of my co-workers. Lo! A big man in Bloods gang colors is coming the opposite way, strutting his way towards us. We're all white, he's black. We passed each other, but I figured that I'd acknowledge him, so as we passed, I said, "'Hey, Blood--how ya doin'?" He didn't look at me, so I figured that I would leave that one right there. My co-workers were silent, and one of them said to me, "What the Hell were you trying to do?" I answered, "I'm acknowledging his presence. It's a form of respect. Gang members hate being disrespected. Okay?" The silence from my three co-workers was deafening.
Now, let's change it up a tad. If he came towards us and pulled a weapon, saying, "Die, white scum" or something like that, and shot at us--but didn't hit us--would that be a hate crime, based on the obvious "Die, white scum" utterance? (Remember something--you're wanting to prosecute intent.) And, if you were David Soares (the Albany County DA), who has made a name for himself in going after steroid pushers, knowing that a big portion of your electorate were African Americans, would you prosecute?
-
Sure, why not?
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.overview.html
Where does it say in the constitution that homosexuality is a protected trait?
The people decide the laws and the punishments for them. If they decide to execute homosexual pedophiles while giving lesser sentences to heterosexual pedophiles that is their legislative perogative unless it violates the BoR...which is absolutely silent concerning faggotuality.
BTW - why are Darwinists always such rabid faggotitis defenders?
-
H5. Murder always terrorizes the community it occurs in.
If someone or some group is killing people of only one ethnicity in a community, then who in that community will feel the most terror? Obviously, the people belonging to one ethnic group, the group being targeted, will feel the most terror.
So, then, how does one measure ethnic terror over regular "OMG! there's a murderer in the neighborhood" terror? Is the terror of a particular ethnic group more valued than the terror of the community as a whole?
It doesn't make sense.
Why not just focus on catching the murderer and bringing it to justice? Wouldn't that set both the balkanized community and the community as a whole back to ease?
-
H5. Murder always terrorizes the community it occurs in.
If someone or some group is killing people of only one ethnicity in a community, then who in that community will feel the most terror? Obviously, the people belonging to one ethnic group, the group being targeted, will feel the most terror.
So, then, how does one measure ethnic terror over regular "OMG! there's a murderer in the neighborhood" terror? Is the terror of a particular ethnic group more valued then the terror of the community as a whole?
It doesn't make sense.
Why not just focus on catching the murderer and bringing it to justice? Wouldn't that set both the balkanized community and the community as a whole back to ease?
It's simple, really, what's more dangerous, someone out there hell bent on killing white people like you? Or a serial killer hell-bent on killing people that look just like you....you know, like the Lopper on Seinfeld? :sarcasm:
Which one wants to make you more dead?
-
Holy Crap TNO I just noticed this
Reputation: +8/-787
Now I don't feel so bad about being BS twice.
One more H5 and i'm tied with you. :cheersmate:
-
Holy Crap TNO I just noticed this
Reputation: +8/-787
Now I don't feel so bad about being BS twice.
One more H5 and i'm tied with you. :cheersmate:
There you go. You should see Johnny Matrix's BS count. TNO is a piker by comparison.
-
Holy Crap TNO I just noticed this
Reputation: +8/-787
Now I don't feel so bad about being BS twice.
One more H5 and i'm tied with you. :cheersmate:
When I got to it, you were already tied. I pushed you over the top. :-)
-
Sweet !
Thanks Guys :cheersmate:
-
The people decide the laws and the punishments for them. If they decide to execute homosexual pedophiles while giving lesser sentences to heterosexual pedophiles that is their legislative perogative unless it violates the BoR...which is absolutely silent concerning faggotuality.
The Fourteenth Amendment provides equal protection under the law to all citizens.
-
The people decide the laws and the punishments for them. If they decide to execute homosexual pedophiles while giving lesser sentences to heterosexual pedophiles that is their legislative perogative unless it violates the BoR...which is absolutely silent concerning faggotuality.
The Fourteenth Amendment provides equal protection to all citizens.
You propose SPECIAL protection to CERTAIN citizens.
*pat pat*
-
The people decide the laws and the punishments for them. If they decide to execute homosexual pedophiles while giving lesser sentences to heterosexual pedophiles that is their legislative perogative unless it violates the BoR...which is absolutely silent concerning faggotuality.
The Fourteenth Amendment provides equal protection to all citizens.
Does it provide more protections in the case of "Hate" crimes?
Could we prosecute Democrats under hate crime legislation for their hatred of America and Americans?
-
You propose SPECIAL protection to CERTAIN citizens.
*pat pat*
LOL! Arguing in favor of the law treating homosexuals in the same way it treats heterosexuals is not an argument in favor of "special" protections. It is an argument rooted in the idea that all men are created equal.
-
In some cases.
Whatever you say, Mr. Bondadinejad.
You never fail to amuse.... :lmao:
-
"Hate" crime is a designation designed by liberalism to let the normal people know that a crime against a liberal's pet is going to get special consideration. It has nothing to do with justice and everything to do with power and control.
If we insisted liberal logic be consistent on the subject, abortion would be a "hate" crime too.
Of course, liberalism falls apart under any guidelines of consistency. Given that fact we are forever assured "hate" crimes will be prosecuted solely on an "as needed" basis.
-
The people decide the laws and the punishments for them. If they decide to execute homosexual pedophiles while giving lesser sentences to heterosexual pedophiles that is their legislative perogative unless it violates the BoR...which is absolutely silent concerning faggotuality.
The Fourteenth Amendment provides equal protection under the law to all citizens.
Which in no logical manner can be construed to refer to homosexuality. Homosexuality is a BEHAVIOR and behavior is exactly what the law seeks to modify and punish. Homosexuals have full constitutional rights in that they have the right to assemble politically, petititon for the redress of grievances, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, the right to be protected from unreasonable search and seizure, the right to keep and bear arms, the right to vote etc etc etc
That is what the 14th Amendment protects.
The corollary is: if homosexulaity is a 14th amendment right then necrophilia, pedophilia, incest, etc also must be granted equal protection under the law; but this claim is absurd on its face. Faggotry is a political fad, not a fact of law or morality.
-
Which in no logical manner can be construed to refer to homosexuality. Homosexuality is a BEHAVIOR and behavior is exactly what the law seeks to modify and punish. Homosexuals have full constitutional rights in that they have the right to assemble politically, petititon for the redress of grievances, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, the right to be protected from unreasonable search and seizure, the right to keep and bear arms, the right to vote etc etc etc
Homosexual acts are behavior. Homosexuality is nature.
-
Which in no logical manner can be construed to refer to homosexuality. Homosexuality is a BEHAVIOR and behavior is exactly what the law seeks to modify and punish. Homosexuals have full constitutional rights in that they have the right to assemble politically, petititon for the redress of grievances, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, the right to be protected from unreasonable search and seizure, the right to keep and bear arms, the right to vote etc etc etc
Homosexual acts are behavior. Homosexuality is nature.
Homosexuality is not nature. This gets my vote for most absurd post ever.
-
I keep knocking the balls out of the park and yet my bitch-slap rating only gets higher. I detect right wing bias at work here! Then again, the number of people ignoring me has gone from 7 to 5, so perhaps I'm gaining traction after all.
-
Homosexuality is not nature. This gets my vote for most absurd post ever.
Feeling sexual and/or romantic attraction to someone of the same sex is not behavior. ******* someone of the same sex is behavior.
-
Homosexuality is not nature. This gets my vote for most absurd post ever.
Feeling an attraction to someone of the same sex is not behavior. ****ing someone of the same sex is behavior.
You said it was nature, which by extension means natural and it is, in fact, an abnormality.
-
Homosexual acts are behavior. Homosexuality is nature.
Horse shit.
Any anthropologist worth his weight in salt will recite the list of societies with acculturated homosexuality.
It is either a behavior or it is a deviation of normal physiology. You might as well argue kleptomaniacs, dipsomaniacs, necrophiliancs and pyromaniacs deserve special protections for their "natures". Of course the same argument of "biological urge" can be applied to any sexual deviant as I noted--and you ignored--in my previous post. Fags have full constitutional rights as I also listed--and you again ignored--in the previous post.
-
Homosexuality is not nature. This gets my vote for most absurd post ever.
Feeling sexual and/or romantic attraction to someone of the same sex is not behavior. ******* someone of the same sex is behavior.
You're not suggesting that feelings should not be criminalized in the same thread where you're advocating hate-crime laws, are you?
And before you start sputtering about anti-homosexuality laws being hypocritically applied by anti-HCL types allow me to remind you that sodomy the behavior was outlawed, not homosexuality the (unDarwinistic) feeling.
-
Homosexuality is not nature. This gets my vote for most absurd post ever.
Feeling sexual and/or romantic attraction to someone of the same sex is not behavior. ******* someone of the same sex is behavior.
You're not suggesting that feelings should not be criminalized in the same thread where you're advocating hate-crime laws, are you?
And before you start sputtering about anti-homosexuality laws being hypocritically applied by anti-HCL types allow me to remind you that sodomy the behavior was outlawed, not homosexuality the (unDarwinistic) feeling.
Even in Catholicism, being a homosexual is not a sin, but acting on it is.
-
It is either a behavior or it is a deviation of normal physiology. You might as well argue kleptomaniacs, dipsomaniacs, necrophiliancs and pyromaniacs deserve special protections for their "natures". Of course the same argument of "biological urge" can be applied to any sexual deviant as I noted--and you ignored--in my previous post. Fags have full constitutional rights as I also listed--and you again ignored--in the previous post.
I'm not arguing that all forms of behavior should be protected. That would be nuts. What I'm arguing is that all people, straight or gay, should be treated equally by the law.
-
I'm not arguing that all forms of behavior should be protected. That would be nuts. What I'm arguing is that all people, straight or gay, should be treated equally by the law.
Why do fags gain special dispensation?
-
LOL! Arguing in favor of the law treating homosexuals in the same way it treats heterosexuals is not an argument in favor of "special" protections. It is an argument rooted in the idea that all men are created equal.
What are you, a ****ing retard? You kill hetero you're charged with murder. You kill a homo, you're charged with murder. There IS nothing that absolves a criminal from a criminal act just because the victim is a homo. These laws have been on the books for centuries, dipshit. We didn't need some ****ing dumbass liberal mucking up the judicial system even more.
-
in·con·sis·ten·cy
n. pl. in·con·sis·ten·cies
1. The state or quality of being inconsistent.
2. Something inconsistent: many inconsistencies in your proposal.
rick ja·mes·ism
n. pl. rick ja·mes·isms
1. The state or quality of being inconsistent due to cocaine addiction.
2. Something inconsistent, ghetto-style:
I just wanted to make sure you weren't arguing that a homosexual and a heterosexual who commit the same kind of crime should be punished differently. That would be un-American.
I support hate crimes laws which increase the penalty for criminal acts which are proven to have been committed with the intent to terrorize or harrass not just primary victims but an entire segment of the population.
:stupid:
Just to rehash.
-
We don't need hate crime laws. Last time I checked, rape, murder, and assault is a crime.
As for the Kinsey report, it is flawed in every way. Some accused it of being too biased towards White Midwesterners. Anyways, it is meaningless.
-
It is either a behavior or it is a deviation of normal physiology. You might as well argue kleptomaniacs, dipsomaniacs, necrophiliancs and pyromaniacs deserve special protections for their "natures". Of course the same argument of "biological urge" can be applied to any sexual deviant as I noted--and you ignored--in my previous post. Fags have full constitutional rights as I also listed--and you again ignored--in the previous post.
I'm not arguing that all forms of behavior should be protected. That would be nuts. What I'm arguing is that all people, straight or gay, should be treated equally by the law.
And they are. So what's your beef?
-
This may have been mentioned already, but just wanted to remind TNO that, where sodomy is still illegal, it is just as illegal for heterosexuals. The behavior, the action, is illegal...nothing else.
-
Some act as though the death penalty for homosexuals is a bad idea.... :censored:
You're thinking homosexuals should be killed? :whatever:
In some cases.
And what would those cases be? For child rape, yes. That's about the only instance I can think of.
I don't like the agenda being forced on children. Live and let live.
These punishment should apply to non-fudge packers as well.
Child molestation.
Knowingly spreading the HIV virus to another person.
Willfully indoctrinating children with the gay agenda.
There are more reasons I'm sure....
-
Why do fags gain special dispensation?
What the hell are you talking about? No one is suggesting that anyone should get special dispensation... whatever that means.
Read carefully. Patriot Game and Bondai argued that if a homosexual and a heterosexual commit the same kind of crime, the homosexual should be punished more harshly. All I'm saying is that the homosexual and heterosexual should face the same punishment.
-
This may have been mentioned already, but just wanted to remind TNO that, where sodomy is still illegal, it is just as illegal for heterosexuals. The behavior, the action, is illegal...nothing else.
Right. I don't think that sodomy between consenting adults should be illegal, but if it's going to be illegal, it should be illegal for everyone.
-
And they are. So what's your beef?
My beef is with Bondai and Patriot Game. They argued, with straight faces, that homosexuals should be punished more harshly than heterosexuals for the same crimes. Do you not see how un-American their attitude is?
-
Why do fags gain special dispensation?
What the hell are you talking about? No one is suggesting that anyone should get special dispensation... whatever that means.
Read carefully. Patriot Game and Bondai argued that if a homosexual and a heterosexual commit the same kind of crime, the homosexual should be punished more harshly. All I'm saying is that the homosexual and heterosexual should face the same punishment.
That's right fagboy. Since libtards like you agree with hate crimes, then it makes perfect sense to add punishment to queers because their chosen lifestyle is a crime against humanity and against nature.
-
And they are. So what's your beef?
My beef is with Bondai and Patriot Game. They argued, with straight faces, that homosexuals should be punished more harshly than heterosexuals for the same crimes. Do you not see how un-American their attitude is?
Ohhhhh....beef, it's whats for dinner, right?
-
Why do fags gain special dispensation?
What the hell are you talking about? No one is suggesting that anyone should get special dispensation... whatever that means.
Read carefully. Patriot Game and Bondai argued that if a homosexual and a heterosexual commit the same kind of crime, the homosexual should be punished more harshly. All I'm saying is that the homosexual and heterosexual should face the same punishment.
I think so as well, but your argument that it is unconstitutional to impose a harsher penalty for a homosexual pedo is legally unfounded and illogical.
Just as if the people chose to punish kleptos more harshly than someone who stole for material gain they would be well within their purview as a self-governing society.
You also noted that straights AND GAYS should be judged equally in the eyes of the law but I am asking why fags = straights in your little senseless paradigm when you so willingly remove these exemptions from other deviants. How do you delineate a difference between the nature/behavior of fags with the nature/behavior of pedos, necros and pederasts? I submit there is no difference except as far as it is a fad of leftism with which to drive a wedge into normative behavior but as soon as that wedge is inserted the polyamorists and NAMBLA types will be hot on the heels of faggotry.
-
And they are. So what's your beef?
My beef is with Bondai and Patriot Game. They argued, with straight faces, that homosexuals should be punished more harshly than heterosexuals for the same crimes. Do you not see how un-American their attitude is?
Wrong.....I said no such thing. You had better go back and check your facts.
-
And they are. So what's your beef?
My beef is with Bondai and Patriot Game. They argued, with straight faces, that homosexuals should be punished more harshly than heterosexuals for the same crimes. Do you not see how un-American their attitude is?
I figured they were just bating you.
-
And they are. So what's your beef?
My beef is with Bondai and Patriot Game. They argued, with straight faces, that homosexuals should be punished more harshly than heterosexuals for the same crimes. Do you not see how un-American their attitude is?
You are the one calling for some people to be punished more harshly than others for the same crime. Good to see you have changed your mind.
-
And they are. So what's your beef?
My beef is with Bondai and Patriot Game. They argued, with straight faces, that homosexuals should be punished more harshly than heterosexuals for the same crimes. Do you not see how un-American their attitude is?
I figured they were just bating you.
They are master baiters.
-
And they are. So what's your beef?
My beef is with Bondai and Patriot Game. They argued, with straight faces, that homosexuals should be punished more harshly than heterosexuals for the same crimes. Do you not see how un-American their attitude is?
I figured they were just bating you.
They are master baiters.
I was waiting for someone to say that . . . :-)
-
This may have been mentioned already, but just wanted to remind TNO that, where sodomy is still illegal, it is just as illegal for heterosexuals. The behavior, the action, is illegal...nothing else.
Right. I don't think that sodomy between consenting adults should be illegal, but if it's going to be illegal, it should be illegal for everyone.
It IS illegal for everyone. However, those engaging in these actions in public restrooms are far more likely to be caught and prosecuted. :-)
-
When does murder not terrorize?
:whatever:
Murder terrorizes the family and friends of the victims, but in some cases, murder can terrorize the family and friends of the victims and an entire segment of the population. For instance, lynchings conducted by the KKK terrorized not only the family and friends of those lynched but blacks in general. In other words, people hung in KKK lynchings weren't the only victims of KKK lynchings.
Allow me to restate, since you did not answer the question...as usual.
When does murder not terrorize?
-
You are the one calling for some people to be punished more harshly than others for the same crime. Good to see you have changed your mind.
No. I'm not calling for some people to be punished more harshly for the same crime. Painting death threats on Jewish homes, for instance, is more than vandalism and is more than just a threat againt the occupants of the homes vandalized.
-
You are the one calling for some people to be punished more harshly than others for the same crime. Good to see you have changed your mind.
No. I'm not calling for some people to be punished more harshly for the same crime. Painting death threats on Jewish homes, for instance, is more than vandalism and is more than just a threat againt the occupants of the homes vandalized.
You're right dude, a death threat is a death threat.
-
You are the one calling for some people to be punished more harshly than others for the same crime. Good to see you have changed your mind.
No. I'm not calling for some people to be punished more harshly for the same crime. Painting death threats on Jewish homes, for instance, is more than vandalism and is more than just a threat againt the occupants of the homes vandalized.
Don't forget to correct your incorrect accusation aimed at me...OTAY?
-
You are the one calling for some people to be punished more harshly than others for the same crime. Good to see you have changed your mind.
No. I'm not calling for some people to be punished more harshly for the same crime. Painting death threats on Jewish homes, for instance, is more than vandalism and is more than just a threat againt the occupants of the homes vandalized.
You're right dude, a death threat is a death threat.
Depending on who levels them at and whom.
-
TNO...Please address my concerns, I am not going away.... :bs:
-
Don't forget to correct your incorrect accusation aimed at me...OTAY?
No. I read you right. In response to an article about homosexuals in Egypt being punished for their homosexuality, you wrote...
Some act as though the death penalty for homosexuals is a bad idea.
Only after your confederates rightly disagreed with your disgusting post did you change your tune.
-
TNO...Please address my concerns, I am not going away.... :bs:
Your arguments are like shifting sand. Addressing them is a waste of time.
-
You're right dude, a death threat is a death threat.
A death threat is a death threat, but a death threat against many is worse than a death threat against few.
-
You're right dude, a death threat is a death threat.
A death threat is a death threat, but a death threat against many is worse than a death threat against few.
Or the one?
-
Don't forget to correct your incorrect accusation aimed at me...OTAY?
No. I read you right. In response to an article about homosexuals in Egypt being punished for their homosexuality, you wrote...
Some act as though the death penalty for homosexuals is a bad idea.
Only after your confederates rightly disagreed with your disgusting post did you change your tune.
You must be joking. Now you claim to have the ability to know what I was thinking when I posted that? You are truly amazing, wrong but amazing. You also say that my responses were based on the responses of others? You don't know me very well. Your point is unproven, big surprise there.
-
You're right dude, a death threat is a death threat.
A death threat is a death threat, but a death threat against many is worse than a death threat against few.
That doesn't make any sense.
Okay, so if on the DUmp some poster says humans are evil and they wish all of us dead, that is worse than making a death threat against, say a church with only three members? Or are you being sarcastic?
-
Okay, so if on the DUmp some poster says humans are evil and they wish all of us dead, that is worse than making a death threat against, say a church with only three members? Or are you being sarcastic?
Expressing a wish that someone die is not a threat.
-
Don't forget to correct your incorrect accusation aimed at me...OTAY?
No. I read you right. In response to an article about homosexuals in Egypt being punished for their homosexuality, you wrote...
Some act as though the death penalty for homosexuals is a bad idea.
Only after your confederates rightly disagreed with your disgusting post did you change your tune.
TNO, where in that post did he say that he agreed with the sentiment? Tell us which pixel has that statement.
-
So if I whack you, a white boy, then I should be punished. But if I whack your best buddy, a black dude, I should get MORE punishment? Your life is worth less than your black buddy's?
If evidence is found that the murder you committed was committed with the intent of terrorizing a segment of the population, then you should be punished for the murder and for terrorizing the population.
Doesnt every murder terrorize a segment of society, aka, the areas surrounding the killing site. Hell, most people at least feel anxious if a murder occurs in there area. Murder inherently "terrorizes a segment of society".
-
TNO...Please address my concerns, I am not going away.... :bs:
Your arguments are like shifting sand. Addressing them is a waste of time.
Translation: I made a false accusation against another forum member and I am not man enough to admit it.
So be it....game on.
-
You're right dude, a death threat is a death threat.
A death threat is a death threat, but a death threat against many is worse than a death threat against few.
Bullshit...how do you have the right to characterize according to your own biases what the definitions of "few" and "many" are. The fact is, your opinion on hate crimes is bullshit, because you can make any crime out fit your biases by using loose terms.
-
And they are. So what's your beef?
My beef is with Bondai and Patriot Game. They argued, with straight faces, that homosexuals should be punished more harshly than heterosexuals for the same crimes. Do you not see how un-American their attitude is?
Did you actually see their faces? :tongue:
-
And they are. So what's your beef?
My beef is with Bondai and Patriot Game. They argued, with straight faces, that homosexuals should be punished more harshly than heterosexuals for the same crimes. Do you not see how un-American their attitude is?
Did you actually see their faces? :tongue:
Never question the great TNO...his word is law.... :loser:
-
Okay, so if on the DUmp some poster says humans are evil and they wish all of us dead, that is worse than making a death threat against, say a church with only three members? Or are you being sarcastic?
Expressing a wish that someone die is not a threat.
So then, if a bunch of skinheads spray painted on a Jewish house, "We wish all of you would just die" you would be okay with that?
-
Don't forget to correct your incorrect accusation aimed at me...OTAY?
No. I read you right. In response to an article about homosexuals in Egypt being punished for their homosexuality, you wrote...
Some act as though the death penalty for homosexuals is a bad idea.
Only after your confederates rightly disagreed with your disgusting post did you change your tune.
TNO, where in that post did he say that he agreed with the sentiment? Tell us which pixel has that statement.
Paging TNO! Oh, nocturnally foul one! A legit question has been posed by multiple members here, and your refusal to address it can only indicate what Bondai said above . . .
-
Okay, so if on the DUmp some poster says humans are evil and they wish all of us dead, that is worse than making a death threat against, say a church with only three members? Or are you being sarcastic?
Expressing a wish that someone die is not a threat.
So, where do we actually draw the line? How about a serial rapist? Certainly the women who live in that community would feel the same "terror" as a Jewish family (or families) who have their house tagged. Perhaps more so if only one house was tagged (and that might have just been a teenage prank) but several women had been raped and the rapist not caught. I'm betting an argument could be made that he "hates" women and part of the thrill was knowing the terror he caused...generally those type of men thrive on that kind of power. I don't need, nor do I want "special" consideration, multiple counts of rape should put the asshole away for life (or close to it, if he doesn't end up being part of some liberal "feel good" policy of trying to mainstream him back into society). If all other things remained equal would it make a difference if the rapist was a black man who only raped white women, or a white man who only raped black women. Does that make it more of a "hate" crime because of the racial differences? Maybe it simply has to do with the kind of women he's attracted to.
And why would the lives of these women and the women of this community, or the Jews whose property had been defaced as well as whatever other Jews were affected by it, be worth more than the college student down the street whose ex boyfriend flew into a rage over their break-up and raped her, beat her to a bloody pulp, and then stabbed her 20 or 30 times? That pretty much sounds like hatred to me. But because it was only ONE person, because the rest of the neighborhood or other women of (insert your preferred ethnic victim here) won't spend a few minutes here and there wondering whether it will happen to them, her rape and murder doesn't qualify as a "hate" crime? The majority of those people "terrorized" by the rapist or angry tagger never had any direct confrontation. Even those who were (and I don't care how many houses are tagged with racial slurs, it doesn't compare to the scars left by rape or molestation) raped or had their house defaced are alive and have a chance to put their lives back together. I just don't understand why the lives of some are more important than others, because that's exactly what hate crimes legislation is. Either you're one of the "victim" class that feels "entitled" or you're carrying around a whole lot of white guilt.
Cindie
-
So, where do we actually draw the line? How about a serial rapist? Certainly the women who live in that community would feel the same "terror" as a Jewish family (or families) who have their house tagged. Perhaps more so if only one house was tagged (and that might have just been a teenage prank) but several women had been raped and the rapist not caught. I'm betting an argument could be made that he "hates" women and part of the thrill was knowing the terror he caused...generally those type of men thrive on that kind of power. I don't need, nor do I want "special" consideration, multiple counts of rape should put the ******* away for life (or close to it, if he doesn't end up being part of some liberal "feel good" policy of trying to mainstream him back into society). If all other things remained equal would it make a difference if the rapist was a black man who only raped white women, or a white man who only raped black women. Does that make it more of a "hate" crime because of the racial differences? Maybe it simply has to do with the kind of women he's attracted to.
And why would the lives of these women and the women of this community, or the Jews whose property had been defaced as well as whatever other Jews were affected by it, be worth more than the college student down the street whose ex boyfriend flew into a rage over their break-up and raped her, beat her to a bloody pulp, and then stabbed her 20 or 30 times? That pretty much sounds like hatred to me. But because it was only ONE person, because the rest of the neighborhood or other women of (insert your preferred ethnic victim here) won't spend a few minutes here and there wondering whether it will happen to them, her rape and murder doesn't qualify as a "hate" crime? The majority of those people "terrorized" by the rapist or angry tagger never had any direct confrontation. Even those who were (and I don't care how many houses are tagged with racial slurs, it doesn't compare to the scars left by rape or molestation) raped or had their house defaced are alive and have a chance to put their lives back together. I just don't understand why the lives of some are more important than others, because that's exactly what hate crimes legislation is. Either you're one of the "victim" class that feels "entitled" or you're carrying around a whole lot of white guilt.
Cindie
To be clear, I'm not in favor of defining hate crimes as you are defining them... as any crime against a person or persons of a certain creed, ethnicity, gender, nationality, race, or sexual orientation. I think a crime should be defined as a hate crime when evidence is found that the crime was committed with conscious intent to harrass, terrorize, or harm a segment of the population.
-
So then, if a bunch of skinheads spray painted on a Jewish house, "We wish all of you would just die" you would be okay with that?
No, of course I would not be okay with skinheads painting anything on anyone's property. Putting graffiti on a Jewish person's property to express a wish that all Jews die is not necessarily making a threat, but it is harrassment, which could also be a hate crime in certain circumstances.
-
Only a moron off the pages of 1984 would embrace the concept of designating any crime, regardless of the circumstances, as a "hate crime".
The entire idea, as is all liberalism, is a grasp at making the not-rational seem normal. Where does "hate crime" leave other crimes of the same nature which won't be classified as motivated by hate? Love crimes?
I ask, you see, because it is impossible to create a category about subject characteristics without creating another category in which to put those things which do not belong in the first category.
-
The entire idea, as is all liberalism, is a grasp at making the not-rational seem normal. Where does "hate crime" leave other crimes of the same nature which won't be classified as motivated by hate? Love crimes?
Basing your opinion of a piece of legislation solely on what you imagine the name implies is silly. No one is suggesting that hate crimes legislation establishes hate crimes as being the only crimes which are motivated by hatred or which involve hatred. Read about hate crimes legislation and then form an opinion about it.
-
Basing your opinion of a piece of legislation solely on what you imagine the name implies is silly. No one is suggesting that hate crimes legislation establishes hate crimes as being the only crimes which are motivated by hatred or which involve hatred. Read about hate crimes legislation and then form an opinion about it.
I oppose them because political fads will be included as groups deserving protection, i.e. the GLBT frauds; while others that might deserve protection will be excluded from protection, think white-christian-males.
The law will also be unevenly applied. We need look no further than the debacle of Affirmative Action wherein in high-scoring Asian college applicants are bounced in favor of lower scoring minorities. We also have the kidnapping, torture, mutilation and murder of a white couple by a gang of thugs who are NOT being charged with a hate crime.
IAnyone even pretending to want the 14th Amendment to be followed both in letter and spirit could never make the law weigh differently for different groups who will be defined--and segregated--based of caprice of pandering politicians.
-
The entire idea, as is all liberalism, is a grasp at making the not-rational seem normal. Where does "hate crime" leave other crimes of the same nature which won't be classified as motivated by hate? Love crimes?
Basing your opinion of a piece of legislation solely on what you imagine the name implies is silly. No one is suggesting that hate crimes legislation establishes hate crimes as being the only crimes which are motivated by hatred or which involve hatred. Read about hate crimes legislation and then form an opinion about it.
O nocturnally foul one . . . Answer my question that I posed to you above.
Where, in Bondai's line, "Some act as though the death penalty for homosexuals is a bad idea," does he say that he agrees with that statement, as you said he did?
-
When does murder not terrorize?
:whatever:
Murder terrorizes the family and friends of the victims, but in some cases, murder can terrorize the family and friends of the victims and an entire segment of the population. For instance, lynchings conducted by the KKK terrorized not only the family and friends of those lynched but blacks in general. In other words, people hung in KKK lynchings weren't the only victims of KKK lynchings.
Allow me to restate, since you did not answer the question...as usual.
When does murder not terrorize?
Still no answer. :whatever:
-
When does murder not terrorize?
:whatever:
Murder terrorizes the family and friends of the victims, but in some cases, murder can terrorize the family and friends of the victims and an entire segment of the population. For instance, lynchings conducted by the KKK terrorized not only the family and friends of those lynched but blacks in general. In other words, people hung in KKK lynchings weren't the only victims of KKK lynchings.
Allow me to restate, since you did not answer the question...as usual.
When does murder not terrorize?
Still no answer. :whatever:
I wonder if it makes a difference to the loved ones of the murdered whether or not the murder was committed while in the state of hating?
And the point I make very simply is regardless of intent, you still have a body who is no longer among the living and loved ones who will mourn their death.
-
Only a moron off the pages of 1984 would embrace the concept of designating any crime, regardless of the circumstances, as a "hate crime".
The entire idea, as is all liberalism, is a grasp at making the not-rational seem normal. Where does "hate crime" leave other crimes of the same nature which won't be classified as motivated by hate? Love crimes?
I ask, you see, because it is impossible to create a category about subject characteristics without creating another category in which to put those things which do not belong in the first category.
Well, just remember in the Orwellian world of the left "All animals are equal. But some animals are more equal than others." The thing about being a liberal...they think they should be the pigs making all the decisions. We probably won't know what a "hate" crime is until they tell us. Next thing you know they'll be telling us what we can think...
Cindie
-
Only a moron off the pages of 1984 would embrace the concept of designating any crime, regardless of the circumstances, as a "hate crime".
The entire idea, as is all liberalism, is a grasp at making the not-rational seem normal. Where does "hate crime" leave other crimes of the same nature which won't be classified as motivated by hate? Love crimes?
I ask, you see, because it is impossible to create a category about subject characteristics without creating another category in which to put those things which do not belong in the first category.
Well, just remember in the Orwellian world of the left "All animals are equal. But some animals are more equal than others." The thing about being a liberal...they think they should be the pigs making all the decisions. We probably won't know what a "hate" crime is until they tell us. Next thing you know they'll be telling us what we can think...
Cindie
I think we are already there. Not that all people think the way they tell us to, but they monopolize by disproportionate margins, the areas of academia, media, and legal. My dad laughs at their self-coined description of "progressive" and re-coins it "progressive socialism".
-
When does murder not terrorize?
:whatever:
Murder terrorizes the family and friends of the victims, but in some cases, murder can terrorize the family and friends of the victims and an entire segment of the population. For instance, lynchings conducted by the KKK terrorized not only the family and friends of those lynched but blacks in general. In other words, people hung in KKK lynchings weren't the only victims of KKK lynchings.
Allow me to restate, since you did not answer the question...as usual.
When does murder not terrorize?
Still no answer. :whatever:
Lug-nut, I'm of the opinion that, when confronted with something that doesn't fall into his bumper-sticker world, the nocturnally foul one just ignores that fact.
Oh, TNO . . . if you don't, prove it. Answer the questions.
-
When does murder not terrorize?
:whatever:
Murder terrorizes the family and friends of the victims, but in some cases, murder can terrorize the family and friends of the victims and an entire segment of the population. For instance, lynchings conducted by the KKK terrorized not only the family and friends of those lynched but blacks in general. In other words, people hung in KKK lynchings weren't the only victims of KKK lynchings.
Allow me to restate, since you did not answer the question...as usual.
When does murder not terrorize?
Still no answer. :whatever:
Lug-nut, I'm of the opinion that, when confronted with something that doesn't fall into his bumper-sticker world, the nocturnally foul one just ignores that fact.
Oh, TNO . . . if you don't, prove it. Answer the questions.
Don't hold your breath, typical troll. Runs in, dumps a troll load and then leaves.
-
When does murder not terrorize?
:whatever:
Murder terrorizes the family and friends of the victims, but in some cases, murder can terrorize the family and friends of the victims and an entire segment of the population. For instance, lynchings conducted by the KKK terrorized not only the family and friends of those lynched but blacks in general. In other words, people hung in KKK lynchings weren't the only victims of KKK lynchings.
Allow me to restate, since you did not answer the question...as usual.
When does murder not terrorize?
Still no answer. :whatever:
Lug-nut, I'm of the opinion that, when confronted with something that doesn't fall into his bumper-sticker world, the nocturnally foul one just ignores that fact.
Oh, TNO . . . if you don't, prove it. Answer the questions.
Don't hold your breath, typical troll. Runs in, dumps a troll load and then leaves.
Yeah, I know, but he's gonna continue to see this one until he answers it or leaves for good.
-
So then, if a bunch of skinheads spray painted on a Jewish house, "We wish all of you would just die" you would be okay with that?
No, of course I would not be okay with skinheads painting anything on anyone's property. Putting graffiti on a Jewish person's property to express a wish that all Jews die is not necessarily making a threat, but it is harrassment, which could also be a hate crime in certain circumstances.
Okay then, back to the original point: Why is it more okay to terrorize a majority population and less okay to terrorize a a more minority population?
Why is it more virtuous in you mind to hate the whole of humanity and less virtuous to hate a subset of that group?
Isn't the misanthrope who currently hates a smaller population on their way to being pan-misanthropic DUmmie that you find so virtuous?
And when the DUmmies all got together in D.C. in January 2004 to throw eggs at President Bush's limo on it's way to the inauguration, they really hated one guy a whole lot, so by your standard, shouldn't each of the egg wielding DUmmies be in prison for hate crimes right now?
-
And when the DUmmies all got together in D.C. in January 2004 to throw eggs at President Bush's limo on it's way to the inauguration, they really hated one guy a whole lot, so by your standard, shouldn't each of the egg wielding DUmmies be in prison for hate crimes right now?
I would presume the retort would be: HCL cover hatred towards a group based on race, ethnicity, religion et al--with GLBT snuck-in for whatever reason I not sure--not individuals.
Of course libs also hate soldiers and conservatives to the point of violence (witness the 2004 election)...but alas they are not a covered groups. Then again libs throw taxpayer money at things like "Piss Christ" a thing designed to challenge and offend a very select group and woebetide any who dare speak against it.
-
Okay then, back to the original point: Why is it more okay to terrorize a majority population and less okay to terrorize a a more minority population?
I haven't suggested that terrorizing a segment of the population is worse than terrorizing the entire population or a majority of the population. Acts of violence which are intended to terrorize the entire population are generally categorized as terrorism. As I wrote earlier, hate crimes are a subset of terrorism. They are a specific kind of terrorism.
-
Terrorism is an act designed to subvert political processes, in other words an act of war generally perpetrated against civilians and their infrastructure. That is why the military is allowed to engage terrorist threats.
You are seeking to militarize crimes between private citizens and you will use arbitrary political fashions to unevenly decide who gets protected and who gets punished.
-
Okay then, back to the original point: Why is it more okay to terrorize a majority population and less okay to terrorize a a more minority population?
I haven't suggested that terrorizing a segment of the population is worse than terrorizing the entire population or a majority of the population. Acts of violence which are intended to terrorize the entire population are generally categorized as terrorism. As I wrote earlier, hate crimes are a subset of terrorism. They are a specific kind of terrorism.
You are right. I misread what you said. I still think it is just as bad either way.
I don't think it is better to terrorize a few people over many people or many people over a few people.
But I guess you are saying DUmmie Land is worse because they are misanthropic and hate the whole of humanity.
We can agree on that. Liberalism too. I simply do not understand liberalism's hate of humanity and of life in general. It's like something out of a 1973 Hammer studios Dracula movie. Or a modern day mosque.
-
Okay then, back to the original point: Why is it more okay to terrorize a majority population and less okay to terrorize a a more minority population?
I haven't suggested that terrorizing a segment of the population is worse than terrorizing the entire population or a majority of the population. Acts of violence which are intended to terrorize the entire population are generally categorized as terrorism. As I wrote earlier, hate crimes are a subset of terrorism. They are a specific kind of terrorism.
When does murder not terrorize?
:whatever:
Murder terrorizes the family and friends of the victims, but in some cases, murder can terrorize the family and friends of the victims and an entire segment of the population. For instance, lynchings conducted by the KKK terrorized not only the family and friends of those lynched but blacks in general. In other words, people hung in KKK lynchings weren't the only victims of KKK lynchings.
Allow me to restate, since you did not answer the question...as usual.
When does murder not terrorize?
Still no answer. :whatever:
-
hmmm...so I wonder if TNO would consider the Berkeley Pink Freaks guilty of hate crime against the Marines. I mean, they are singling out one segment of the population to protest against, and harass.
-
hmmm...so I wonder if TNO would consider the Berkeley Pink Freaks guilty of hate crime against the Marines. I mean, they are singling out one segment of the population to protest against, and harass.
The smelly Pink Freaks are committing occupational terrorism, economic terrorism, and attempting to deny others free choice to associate. Every one of the the pink lesbians and their male puppets, if we applied liberal logic consistently, should be jailed immediately.
-
hmmm...so I wonder if TNO would consider the Berkeley Pink Freaks guilty of hate crime against the Marines. I mean, they are singling out one segment of the population to protest against, and harass.
Are you talking about Code Pink? Unless Code Pink activists do something illegal to protest against the Marines, then I don't see how they could be charged with a crime, let alone a hate crime.
One of the misconceptions about hate crimes legislation is the idea that it outlaws expressions or acts which were once legal. It does not.
-
You are right. I misread what you said. I still think it is just as bad either way.
I don't think it is better to terrorize a few people over many people or many people over a few people.
But I guess you are saying DUmmie Land is worse because they are misanthropic and hate the whole of humanity.
We can agree on that. Liberalism too. I simply do not understand liberalism's hate of humanity and of life in general. It's like something out of a 1973 Hammer studios Dracula movie. Or a modern day mosque.
I have no idea what you're talking about. Perhaps you don't either.
-
hmmm...so I wonder if TNO would consider the Berkeley Pink Freaks guilty of hate crime against the Marines. I mean, they are singling out one segment of the population to protest against, and harass.
Are you talking about Code Pink? Unless Code Pink activists do something illegal to protest against the Marines, then I don't see how they could be charged with a crime, let alone a hate crime.
One of the misconceptions about hate crimes legislation is the idea that it outlaws expressions or acts which were once legal. It does not.
When does murder not terrorize?
:whatever:
Murder terrorizes the family and friends of the victims, but in some cases, murder can terrorize the family and friends of the victims and an entire segment of the population. For instance, lynchings conducted by the KKK terrorized not only the family and friends of those lynched but blacks in general. In other words, people hung in KKK lynchings weren't the only victims of KKK lynchings.
Allow me to restate, since you did not answer the question...as usual.
When does murder not terrorize?
Still no answer. :whatever:
-
Still no answer. :whatever:
Why do you keep asking me to come up with examples of murders which don't cause terror? I haven't argued that some murders don't cause terror so stop badgering me to present information to support an argument I have not made.
-
Still no answer. :whatever:
Why do you keep asking me to come up with examples of murders which don't cause terror? I haven't argued that some murderers don't cause terror so stop badgering me to present information to support an argument I have not made.
Still busy telling us what you have not told us. And still not answering the question... :whatever:
When does murder not terrorize?
:whatever:
Murder terrorizes the family and friends of the victims, but in some cases, murder can terrorize the family and friends of the victims and an entire segment of the population. For instance, lynchings conducted by the KKK terrorized not only the family and friends of those lynched but blacks in general. In other words, people hung in KKK lynchings weren't the only victims of KKK lynchings.
Allow me to restate, since you did not answer the question...as usual.
When does murder not terrorize?
Still no answer. :whatever:
You support additional punishment for crimes committed while the perp had un-PC thoughts/motives...i.e. a murder that terrorizes a group of people. It's a simple question really...when does a murder not terrorize?
-
Still no answer. :whatever:
Why do you keep asking me to come up with examples of murders which don't cause terror? I haven't argued that some murders don't cause terror so stop badgering me to present information to support an argument I have not made.
Okay, then, here's one that you did make.
Quote from: Bondai on April 12, 2008, 01:27:52 pm
Don't forget to correct your incorrect accusation aimed at me...OTAY?
No. I read you right. In response to an article about homosexuals in Egypt being punished for their homosexuality, you wrote...
Some act as though the death penalty for homosexuals is a bad idea.
Only after your confederates rightly disagreed with your disgusting post did you change your tune.
« Last Edit: April 12, 2008, 01:57:25 pm by The Night Owl »
And I wrote . . .
TNO, where in that post did he say that he agreed with the sentiment? Tell us which pixel has that statement.
Well, then? Answer the question.
-
Still busy telling us what you have not told us. And still not answering the question... :whatever:
Do you have a reading comprehension problem or something? I've already stated that murder terrorizes the families of victims, the friends of victims, and in some cases entire communities, so why do you keep expecting me to provide examples of murders which haven't caused terror?
-
Still no answer. :whatever:
Why do you keep asking me to come up with examples of murders which don't cause terror? I haven't argued that some murderers don't cause terror so stop badgering me to present information to support an argument I have not made.
So basically what you're saying is that some terror/murder is worse than others? Two women are murdered. The first one, a white woman, was viciously tortured and beaten to death. The guy who did it to her was also white. The second woman is black. She was shot in the head and died instantly. Her killer is also white. However, during their investigation the police discover an email on killer #2's computer he sent to one of his friends that said, "Hank, I'm gonna go kill me one of those black ho's. Those people make me sick." Now, while "those people" could be blacks or ho's he was talking about, but thanks to the "new and improved" hate crimes legislation, the DA reads the guys mind and decides he meant "blacks". Now, there's this added component to murderer #2 that punishes him more severely than murderer #1. But that's okay...maybe the white girl took longer to die, maybe she suffered more...at least her perp was the same race. Because as we all know, finding an email that professes hatred for a certain race is SO much worse than being tortured and beaten.
Cindie
-
TNO, where in that post did he say that he agreed with the sentiment? Tell us which pixel has that statement.
Well, then? Answer the question.
If Bondai feels that homosexuals should be executed, then I think we must conclude that he applauds Egypt's policy of punishing homosexuals.
-
TNO, where in that post did he say that he agreed with the sentiment? Tell us which pixel has that statement.
Well, then? Answer the question.
If Bondai feels that homosexuals should be executed, then I think we must conclude that he applauds Egypt's policy of punishing homosexuals.
Let's go over this again . . .
You wrote:
Only after your confederates rightly disagreed with your disgusting post did you change your tune.
You imply that Bondai feels that way, and is not just pointing the fact that some people feel that the death penalty for homosexuals isn't a bad idea (Islamists, and the government of Iran for example). Therefore, you're either jumping to conclusions where none was given, and you owe Bondai a huge apology; or you're outright lying, and probably need to take a "time-out."
Which is it? It's one or the other. No gray areas here, just like you applied to Bondai.
-
Still busy telling us what you have not told us. And still not answering the question... :whatever:
Do you have a reading comprehension problem or something? I've already stated that murder terrorizes the families of victims, the friends of victims, and in some cases entire communities, so why do you keep expecting me to provide examples of murders which haven't caused terror?
You support additional punishment for crimes committed while the perp had un-PC thoughts/motives...i.e. a murder that terrorizes a group of people. It's a simple question really...when does a murder not terrorize?
-
Still busy telling us what you have not told us. And still not answering the question... :whatever:
Do you have a reading comprehension problem or something? I've already stated that murder terrorizes the families of victims, the friends of victims, and in some cases entire communities, so why do you keep expecting me to provide examples of murders which haven't caused terror?
You support additional punishment for crimes committed while the perp had un-PC thoughts/motives...i.e. a murder that terrorizes a group of people. It's a simple question really...when does a murder not terrorize?
I'm guessing he believes the "terror" part is okay as long as said murderer doesn't "hate" the protected group the victim belongs to and expresses that hate, before, during, or after the crime.
Cindie
-
You support additional punishment for crimes committed while the perp had un-PC thoughts/motives...i.e. a murder that terrorizes a group of people. It's a simple question really...when does a murder not terrorize?
I'll try this one more time...
I cannot provide examples of murders which don't terrorize because all murders cause at least some amount of terror.
-
Ahem, TNO - go re-read page 11 of this thread.
-
You imply that Bondai feels that way, and is not just pointing the fact that some people feel that the death penalty for homosexuals isn't a bad idea (Islamists, and the government of Iran for example).
You need read more carefully. Bondai declared that some people feel that the death penalty for homosexuals is a bad idea and then placed the "censored" emoticon after the declaration to suggest that he curses people who think that the death penalty for homosexuals is a bad idea. The implication of Bondai's statement, in the context of this thread, was very clear.
Let me know if you need further clarification.
-
Ahem, TNO - go re-read page 11 of this thread.
Okay. Done. What is your point?
-
Do you believe in evolution, TNO?
Yes.
-
You support additional punishment for crimes committed while the perp had un-PC thoughts/motives...i.e. a murder that terrorizes a group of people. It's a simple question really...when does a murder not terrorize?
I'll try this one more time...
I cannot provide examples of murders which don't terrorize because all murders cause at least some amount of terror.
...and yet you advocate additional punishment for murders that cause terror. :mental:
-
Ok, now, is being gay a "choice" or are they just "born that way"?
A loaded question. Homosexual behavior is a choice, but the reason why some people are attracted to persons of the same sex may be the result of genetics.
Science has not determined the reason why some people are attracted to persons of the same sex. I believe that homosexuality, in regard to sexual attraction, is probably the result of genetics combined with external factors, but I haven't ruled out the possibility that it may be the result of purely genetic factors or purely external factors.
-
You imply that Bondai feels that way, and is not just pointing the fact that some people feel that the death penalty for homosexuals isn't a bad idea (Islamists, and the government of Iran for example).
You need read more carefully. Bondai declared that some people feel that the death penalty for homosexuals is a bad idea and then placed the "censored" emoticon after the declaration to suggest that he curses people who think that the death penalty for homosexuals is a bad idea. The implication of Bondai's statement, in the context of this thread, was very clear.
Let me know if you need further clarification.
Bondai did come back and clarify the post. That's why I told you to go back and re-read the thread. And, I made a small error. I should have told you to start re-reading on page 10, not page 11. Please do that now.
Your accusation was answered and debunked. Now, let me know if you need further clarification.
This thread is veering off track. I will shut it down if we can't keep it on topic and civil.
If anyone feels the need to call someone out, please use the Fight Club.
-
You imply that Bondai feels that way, and is not just pointing the fact that some people feel that the death penalty for homosexuals isn't a bad idea (Islamists, and the government of Iran for example).
You need read more carefully. Bondai declared that some people feel that the death penalty for homosexuals is a bad idea and then placed the "censored" emoticon after the declaration to suggest that he curses people who think that the death penalty for homosexuals is a bad idea. The implication of Bondai's statement, in the context of this thread, was very clear.
Let me know if you need further clarification.
Bondai did come back and clarify the post. That' why I told you to go back and re-read the thread. And, I made a small error. I should have told you to start re-reading on page 10, not page 11. Please do that now.
Your accusation was answered and debunked. Now, let me know if you need further clarification.
This thread is veering off track. I will shut it down if we can't keep it on topic and civil.
If anyone feels the need to call someone out, please use the Fight Club.
Hear, hear! Mega dittos!
Oh, nocturnally foul one . . . :loser:
-
Bondai did come back and clarify the post. That' why I told you to go back and re-read the thread. And, I made a small error. I should have told you to start re-reading on page 10, not page 11. Please do that now.
Your accusation was answered and debunked. Now, let me know if you need further clarification.
This thread is veering off track. I will shut it down if we can't keep it on topic and civil.
If anyone feels the need to call someone out, please use the Fight Club.
I believe that what you call Bondai's clarification was actually a reversal. Anyway, if you don't think that my criticism of Bondai is fair, then feel free to assume that it applies only to Patriot Game and Bad Cat since they have no qualms about admitting that the persecution of homosexuals makes them deliriously and unapologetically gleeful.
-
Bondai did come back and clarify the post. That' why I told you to go back and re-read the thread. And, I made a small error. I should have told you to start re-reading on page 10, not page 11. Please do that now.
Your accusation was answered and debunked. Now, let me know if you need further clarification.
This thread is veering off track. I will shut it down if we can't keep it on topic and civil.
If anyone feels the need to call someone out, please use the Fight Club.
I believe that what you call Bondai's clarification was actually a reversal. Anyway, if you don't think that my criticism of Bondai is fair, then feel free to assume that it applies only to Patriot Game and Bad Cat since the persecution of homosexuals makes them deliriously and unapologetically gleeful.
By your own admission, you assumed Bondai meant something that was never posted. You read between the lines and refused to accept the explanation. So, no, this is not an issue of whether or not I think your criticism is fair. It's about being dead wrong and refusing to admit it when you've been given clarification. Feel free to continue to disagree with the others though. They are also invited to disagree with you. By all means, debate away. Keep it civil and on topic though.
Again, consider this a general warning to all. And please use the Fight Club for any beefs you have. It's why we have it.
-
By your own admission, you assumed Bondai meant something that was never posted. You read between the lines and refused to accept the explanation. So, no, this is not an issue of whether or not I think your criticism is fair. It's about being dead wrong and refusing to admit it when you've been given clarification. Feel free to continue to disagree with the others though. They are also invited to disagree with you. By all means, debate away. Keep it civil and on topic though.
Again, consider this a general warning to all. And please use the Fight Club for any beefs you have. It's why we have it.
Only Bondai knows if he really meant what he wrote, but the meaning of what he wrote was pretty clear... Curses to all those who think that executing homosexuals is a bad idea.
The only difference between us is that you're willing to believe Bondai's claim that he didn't mean what he wrote and I'm not.
-
No "glee" involved. I just could not care less.
At the very least, you think that executing homosexuals would make the world a better place. Pretty hateful.
-
No "glee" involved. I just could not care less.
At the very least, you think that executing homosexuals would make the world a better place. Pretty hateful.
Actually no "hate" involved.....I think most of us would be fine if they just returned to the "closet", and left the rest of us alone......
doc
-
Actually no "hate" involved.....I think most of us would be fine if they just returned to the "closet", and left the rest of us alone......
doc
If Badcat had written that had written that the execution of Jews is no big deal and that the world would be better off without them, would you not describe him as hateful?
-
Actually no "hate" involved.....I think most of us would be fine if they just returned to the "closet", and left the rest of us alone......
doc
If Badcat had written that had written that the execution of Jews is no big deal and that the world would be better off without them, would you not describe him as hateful?
Either take it up in the Fight Club or drop it HERE jackass.
You have already been warned by a Mod.
-
No "glee" involved. I just could not care less.
At the very least, you think that executing homosexuals would make the world a better place. Pretty hateful.
Actually no "hate" involved.....I think most of us would be fine if they just returned to the "closet", and left the rest of us alone......
doc
You got that right. Liberals realized they were not winning the argument, so, as required by the Liberals Bible, they changed the rules. The new rule states that opposing the radical homosexual agenda equals hating homosexuals. It is dishonest and absurd, but hey! we are dealing with liberals, so we have to expect dishonesty and absurdity. Liberalism cannot exist without them.
-
By your own admission, you assumed Bondai meant something that was never posted. You read between the lines and refused to accept the explanation. So, no, this is not an issue of whether or not I think your criticism is fair. It's about being dead wrong and refusing to admit it when you've been given clarification. Feel free to continue to disagree with the others though. They are also invited to disagree with you. By all means, debate away. Keep it civil and on topic though.
Again, consider this a general warning to all. And please use the Fight Club for any beefs you have. It's why we have it.
Only Bondai knows if he really meant what he wrote, but the meaning of what he wrote was pretty clear... Curses to all those who think that executing homosexuals is a bad idea.
The only difference between us is that you're willing to believe Bondai's claim that he didn't mean what he wrote and I'm not.
That was exactly the point myself and several others tried to hammer into you. Bondai even came back and clarified it for you.
This is the final warning. I am going to shut this thread down if you persist. Start a thread in the Fight Club if you have issues with someone. Get back on track NOW.
-
Only Bondai knows if he really meant what he wrote, but the meaning of what he wrote was pretty clear... Curses to all those who think that executing homosexuals is a bad idea.
The only difference between us is that you're willing to believe Bondai's claim that he didn't mean what he wrote and I'm not.
Actually the difference is that I'm not willing to guess and speculate at what Bondia meant when he stated this, as you seem to guess and speculate as to what his claim was.
Some act as though the death penalty for homosexuals is a bad idea.... :censored:
That's the same problem with HCL............it leaves it open to people determining ones thoughts when a crime was commited, hence punishing one person unequally under the law. If it's illegal to be a homosexual in Egypt or Iran and you are executed for it as prescribed by their law, then I see nothing wrong. They have broken a law by making a choice to break the law as just a few post ago you stated.
Homosexual behavior is a choice, but the reason why some people are attracted to persons of the same sex may be the result of genetics.
You say it's a choice to be homosexual, yet speculate that it may be a genetically linked. So if being a homosexual is a choice, then I don't care if people are executed for the choices they make where illegal. I expect that a person who commits murder is punished just the same as they made a choice to do that.
-
This is the final warning. I am going to shut this thread down if you persist. Start a thread in the Fight Club if you have issues with someone. Get back on track NOW.
Okay. I'll lay off.
:bow:
-
You say it's a choice to be homosexual, yet speculate that it may be a genetically linked. So if being a homosexual is a choice, then I don't care if people are executed for the choices they make where illegal. I expect that a person who commits murder is punished just the same as they made a choice to do that.
I think you misunderstood what I wrote. What I wrote is that homosexuality, as defined by behavior, is a choice, but homosexuality, as defined by sexual attraction, is the result of genetics.
-
You say it's a choice to be homosexual, yet speculate that it may be a genetically linked. So if being a homosexual is a choice, then I don't care if people are executed for the choices they make where illegal. I expect that a person who commits murder is punished just the same as they made a choice to do that.
I think you misunderstood what I wrote. What I wrote is that homosexuality, as defined by behavior, is a choice, but homosexuality, as defined by sexual attraction, is the result of genetics.
No you said it MAY BE the result of genetics. Regardless, these five Egyptian homosexuals made a choice and will pay for that choice.
-
hmmm...so I wonder if TNO would consider the Berkeley Pink Freaks guilty of hate crime against the Marines. I mean, they are singling out one segment of the population to protest against, and harass.
Are you talking about Code Pink? Unless Code Pink activists do something illegal to protest against the Marines, then I don't see how they could be charged with a crime, let alone a hate crime.
One of the misconceptions about hate crimes legislation is the idea that it outlaws expressions or acts which were once legal. It does not.
again. the whole point of hatecrime/hatespeech laws is essentially to criminalize thought.
-
No you said it MAY BE the result of genetics.
You're right. Thank you.
-
Quote from: The Night Owl on Today at 12:14:23 pm
Only Bondai knows if he really meant what he wrote, but the meaning of what he wrote was pretty clear... Curses to all those who think that executing homosexuals is a bad idea.
The only difference between us is that you're willing to believe Bondai's claim that he didn't mean what he wrote and I'm not.
Right here you have clearly illustrated why hate crimes legislation has no place in the American legal system. You've had several people, ncluding Bondai and others that know him better than you (think of them as character witnesses) try to explain your erroneous interpretation. You're not "willing to believe" isn't a problem on a message board but could have serious consequences in a court of law because what you've done is assumed you could Bondai's thoughts. You're completely unwilling to entertain any other interpretation but your own.
Imagine if this was a trial. Let's say Bondai shot some gay man in the foot. Now, Bondai might not even have known this guy was gay, maybe he was just some Obama staffer who told him he was going to take away everyone's guns and turn the neighborhood church into housing for illegal aliens. But you, being a liberal, which means you basically think the worst of people especially those who don't think like you burst through the courtroom doors with this thread in your hands all ready to "prove" it was a hate crime. See the thing is, even if he meant it the way you interpreted it, it could've been said tongue-in-cheek. Or maybe for no other reason than he knew you'd be falling all over yourself playing "enlightened progressive". You can't read another persons thoughts, period.
Cindie