Hate Crimes - OK To Commit Say Some?

[Revoltingest]

Don't be dense.

Don't be rude.

 

[dawny0826]

I consider intent important in a different way.
When the intended result is less than the result, that could be a mitigating factor.
Example: I saw friend Wirey in a bar, & punched him cuz I hate Canuckistanian oil shale workers.
1) I intended only a fat lip, but he died.
2) I intended to beat him to death, & he died.
3) Just like #2, but I yelled "I hate those hosers in Canuckistan!".
I argue that #1 should receive a lighter sentence than #2 & #3.
#2 & #3 should be the same sentence because same result & same intention.
Wirey objects to all 3 scenarios.

From this perspective, perhaps you should be tried for a hate crime, if this is the way the law works in regards to hate crimes. Because, your intentions were to harm Wirey because of your hatred for him because he's a Canuckistanian.

He's an individual, but he comes from the group that you have an issue with...you hateful person, you.

 

[Storm]

Don't be rude.

Rude is using semantics to dodge points.

And you aren't exactly known for being a paragon of courtesy, so you really haven't got much room to complain in the first place.

Now would you like to have an honest exchange of ideas, or did you just want to whine about how hate crime legislation is unfair?

 

[9Westy9]

Hard to call it hate crime without evidence that a) it was planned on the gay man and b) that it was because he was gay

 

[Revoltingest]

From this perspective, perhaps you should be tried for a hate crime, if this is the way the law works in regards to hate crimes. Because, your intentions were to harm Wirey because of your hatred for him because he's a Canuckistanian.
He's an individual, but he comes from the group that you have an issue with...you hateful person, you.

Yes, you're right.
I was actually uncomfortable writing those scenarios, especially since I like Canuckistanians & Wirey.
But it seemed even worse to pick people I disliked.

 

[Revoltingest]

Rude is using semantics to dodge points.
And you aren't exactly known for being a paragon of courtesy, so you really haven't got much room to complain in the first place.
Now would you like to have an honest exchange of ideas, or did you just want to whine about how hate crime legislation is unfair?

If you want to address my points, that is fine.
But when you make it nasty & personal, that is a rule violation.
I don't offer snarky opinions about you, & I ask for the same courtesy.

 

[Storm]

If you want to address my points, that is fine.
But when you make it nasty & personal, that is a rule violation.
I don't offer snarky opinions about you, & I ask for the same.

I've addressed every point you've made, and you've dodged every argument. You get what you give, dude.

 

[Revoltingest]

I've addressed every point you've made, and you've dodged every argument. You get what you give, dude.

To explain why you're abusive is not a justification for being abusive.
I'd like this recurring pattern to stop.

 

[Storm]

Ball's in your court. Respond to my points and I'll respond to yours. Treat me with respect, I'll return the favor. Till then, I repeat: You get what you give.

 

[Revoltingest]

Ball's in your court. Respond to my points and I'll respond to yours. Treat me with respect, I'll return the favor. Till then, I repeat: You get what you give.

That would be fair.
What would you like addressed?

 

[Storm]

That would be fair.
What would you like addressed?

Post # 9 and the question of whether hate speech should be criminal or free.

 

[Revoltingest]

Post # 9 and the question of whether hate speech should be criminal or free.

My answer was in post #14:
"It's criminal to vandalize property.
I'd say that is sufficient, & should be treated more harshly than it currently is."

 

[Storm]

My answer was in post #14:
"It's criminal to vandalize property.
I'd say that is sufficient, & should be treated more harshly than it currently is."

The question was not limited to the example of graffiti.

 

[Revoltingest]

The question was not limited to the example of graffiti.

The crime of graffiti may be writ large.
I say the same of all property crimes.
They're hurtful attacks upon others, doing all but draw blood.

 

[Storm]

The crime of graffiti may be writ large.
I say the same of all property crimes.
They're hurtful attacks upon others, doing all but draw blood.

I wasn't talking about property crime, but hate speech.

 

[Revoltingest]

I wasn't talking about property crime, but hate speech.

I don't favor punishing hate speech, only real crimes.
There is great potential for repression when gov't acquires the power to punish thought crime.
To do so in conjunction with real crime is just the first step IMO.
Next, the mere expression of offensive speech would be restricted....IM(paranoid)O

 

[Storm]

I don't favor punishing hate speech, only real crimes.
There is great potential for repression when gov't acquires the power to punish thought crime.
To do so in conjunction with real crime is just the first step IMO.
Next, the mere expression of offensive speech would be restricted....IM(paranoid)O

OK, that's a response.

I'll wait for you to reply to post 9, before answering in the interest of streamlining.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'll wait for you to reply to post 9, before answering in the interest of streamlining.

I already have, so I don't know what to add.
Questions?

 

[Storm]

I already have, so I don't know what to add.
Questions?

I can't seem to find it... Got a post number? Multiquote is my friend .

 

[Revoltingest]

I can't seem to find it... Got a post number? Multiquote is my friend .

#14 & #34 fully state my views.
We be good!