Egypt sentences 5 men for homosexuality - Christians at fault

[cclanofirish]

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.

[cclanofirish]

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?

[Bondai]

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?

Never question the great TNO...his word is law....

[Duke Nukum]

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?

[BlueStateSaint]

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 . . .

[delilahmused]

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

[The Night Owl]

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.

[The Night Owl]

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.

[Lord Undies]

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 Night Owl]

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.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

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.

[BlueStateSaint]

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?

[Chris_]

When does murder not terrorize?
 

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.   

[Chris_]

When does murder not terrorize?
 

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.   

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.

[delilahmused]

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

[Chris_]

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".

[BlueStateSaint]

When does murder not terrorize?
 

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.   

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.

[Bondai]

When does murder not terrorize?
 

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.   

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.

[Chris_]

When does murder not terrorize?
 

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.   

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.

[Duke Nukum]

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?

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

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.

[The Night Owl]

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.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

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.

[Duke Nukum]

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.

[Chris_]

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?
 

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.