Ron Paul, right on some issues, wrong on most

[yossarian22]

Saying 'I'm going to smack you' and then smacking someone. You hardly need to be "beating them for 5 minutes".

That is assualt.
Assault and battery requires a bit more then a single punch.

If that was the case, then there would be an awful lot more murder.

Do you enjoy being obtuse?
People will rarely kill people they like.

Evidence for this, please. Juries do tend to be biased against minorities.

You read to much TKAM.
If he is a minority is irrelevant because juries sympathize with the victim.

Of course not. In order for it to be applicable, 1) beyond the shadow of a doubt, the accuser was knowingly lying,

Now if the accuser points to somebody to whom none of evidence points to, it should be suspcious.

the person's reputation was significantly damaged by the accusations, enough to require monetary compensation.

Hah. Good luck selling that to a jury.

Most often in rape cases, the person can't prove s/he was raped, and therefore the accused is declared simply "not guilty".

Do you know of dismissal with prejudice means?
If the defendant is not exonerated by the evidence, he does not get dismissal with prejudice. The stigma sticks

No, they don't, they require witnesses, forensic and medical evidence just like anyone else.

Contradiction there.Lets quote you again

Most often in rape cases, the person can't prove s/he was raped, and therefore the accused is declared simply "not guilty".

********. If you honestly think that a defendant has never won a rape or sexual harassment case, you have been living under a rock.

Now where did I say that?
I said that it is rare for a dismissal with prejudice to occur, which means there actually was an incident, and the person responsible was caught.

Of course not, and this is true whether or not there are "hate crime" laws.

So we should allow laws that AMPLIFY these flaws?

Yep. When you translate your thoughts to illegal behavior, such as grafitti, violence, employment discrimination, harassment--guess what? It's a hate crime! Do you still not get it?

That is idiotic. He can say Kill all <minority> on his blog, but when he sprays it on a wall its hate crime? That is illogical to the extreme. Either saying comments like that should be illegal, or spraying it on a wall should not merit harsher punishment.
Guess which option is denied by the First Amendment?

And we rely on circumstances as evidence for hate crimes too

Circumstances? For vandalism and assault & battery cases?
"Sorry officer. Bob here just fell down the up escalator for 10 minutes"

--but the bottom line is, we are making judgments on what their intent was.

If you prosecute certain types of vandalism more heavily merely because of its content, then you are essentially prosecuting somebody for having a point of view. Whether it is right or wrong is irrelevant.

Circumstances can only help provide evidence one way or the other. Just like in hate crimes....in one case, a person accidentally crashes into a black guy,

With a car I assume.

in the other, the black guy is being hung from his tree with DIE DARKIE DIE scratched into him.

Lets see. You compare a car crash, to hanging somebody.
Gotta love logic

:sarcastic Hmmm...(what you mean I can THINK about hanging black guys from trees, but when I actually do it, it's a hate crime??!?!? Yes.)

That is the reason VANDALISM should not be considered a hate crime.
When do you hang somebody and not hate them?

your "right to be racist" ends when you start using your racism to commit violent acts on, intimidate and terrorize people of color Period. That means racist thoughts, not racist actions.

So essentially, I cannot think racist thoughts now?
Great. Break out the tin foil hats.

Also, we aren't talking about "crimes in which hate is a motivating force",

Hmmm. hate crime is almost exclusively applied to vandalism, assault & battery, and murder.
Hate seems a motivator in all of those crimes save vandalism, which is different, as I have repeatedly pointed out

I don't care.

So shut up?

No, it's meant to punish a specific type of crime. You can think whatever you want to think, you can say whatever you want to say.

But I cannot express it in an illegal manner.
In case you did not get it the first dozen times,I will repeat it for you.
This applies to VANDALISM

your "right to be racist" ends when you start using your racism to commit violent acts on, intimidate and terrorize people of color

Then call it terrorism, do not give it some idiotic convoluted new legal definition whose application is so broad that it threatens my constitutional rights.

 

[Grappleberry Punch]

That is assualt.
Assault and battery requires a bit more then a single punch.

No, it doesn't. It requires a threat of violence, and then violence. That is all.

You read to much TKAM.
If he is a minority is irrelevant because juries sympathize with the victim.

I read too much news.
Well, then, they'll sympathize with the victim with or without hate crimes law.

Now if the accuser points to somebody to whom none of evidence points to, it should be suspcious.[/quote]

Do you know of dismissal with prejudice means?
If the defendant is not exonerated by the evidence, he does not get dismissal with prejudice. The stigma sticks

I know what it means. No, most of them don't get "dismissal with prejudice", and I don't care if the stigma sticks.

Contradiction there.

You can get a case to court with no evidence at all...in order to get a guilty verdict, you need evidence.

Now where did I say that?
I said that it is rare for a dismissal with prejudice to occur, which means there actually was an incident, and the person responsible was caught.

Oh...right here....
<i>A great deal of rape/ sexual harassment cases devolve into your word bs my word.
guess who wins?
its never the defendant.</i>
The defendant NEVER wins a rape/sexual harassment case, is what you said. This is totally different than "it is rare for a dismissal with prejudice to occur", something which I agree with.

So we should allow laws that AMPLIFY these flaws?

In which case any law which classifies crimes into "bad, worse, worst" categories is AMPLIFYING those flaws. How bout just one flat sentence for any crime?

That is idiotic. He can say Kill all <minority> on his blog, but when he sprays it on a wall its hate crime? That is illogical to the extreme. Either saying comments like that should be illegal, or spraying it on a wall should not merit harsher punishment.

Or how about we can say what we want, but have our speech end where another's personal rights begins. It's a really simple concept. You can say what you want, you can even write what you want on a wall...so long as it's your wall and you aren't writing on mine in an attempt to terrorize me or drive me out of your neighborhood. Got it?

Circumstances? For vandalism and assault & battery cases?
"Sorry officer. Bob here just fell down the up escalator for 10 minutes"

Yep. But you don't know what "assault and battery" means, so I'll just drop it.

If you prosecute certain types of vandalism more heavily merely because of its content, then you are essentially prosecuting somebody for having a point of view.

No, we are prosecuting based on what that vandalism was supposed to do. Mark territory? Declare your love for the world to see? Terrorize minorities? If the latter, you may face a harsher jail sentence. And that has nothing to do with your point of view--if you are personally racist and yet the only thing you put on property not your own is **** like "Yossarian was here" you won't be charged with a hate crime. Your pov will not get you arrested, but if all the black people in the neighborhood wake up with "Die ****** Die" spray painted on their driveways, then it's a different matter with different intent and different consequences. ("You mean I can think about spray painting hateful messages on other people's belongings, or think about destroying their property outright, but when I actually do it it's a hate crime?!?!?!?!" :sarcastic Yes, Yossarian, now you're getting the hang of things!)

Lets see. You compare a car crash, to hanging somebody.
Gotta love logic

You compared to plotting to kill someone with being drunk and crashing into someone. I did the exact same ****.

That is the reason VANDALISM should not be considered a hate crime.
When do you hang somebody and not hate them?

So can murder be considered a hate crime? And again HATE CRIME, not CRIME POSSIBLY MOTIVATED BY HATRED. It has a specific meaning, beyond "hmm hate had something to do with this crime", and if you don't know the difference, time to go look it up. We've gone far too long into this conversation for you to continue to play dumb. Next time you do it, I am going to post the :slap:face.

So essentially, I cannot think racist thoughts now?

You're still confused, and I think you're still having a **** ton of trouble. You can think racist thoughts, and say racist things. But your "right to be racist" ends when you start using your racism to commit violent acts on, intimidate and terrorize people of color. Period.

Hmmm. hate crime is almost exclusively applied to vandalism, assault & battery, and murder.

Intimidation: 31.3%
Destruction/Damage/Vandalism: 31.1%
Simple Assault 19.4%
Aggravated Assault 11.5%
Murder/Forcible Rape/Arson/Robbery/Burglary/Larceny-Theft/Motor Theft 6%
Crimes Against Society .7%

Hate seems a motivator in all of those crimes save vandalism,

:slap: And hate is just as often a motive for vandalism anyway...do you destroy and/or deface the property of people who you like?

But I cannot express it in an illegal manner.

EXACTLY. HOLY ****. Keep your hateful speech and thoughts as speech and thought, and don't use it as an excuse to harm others!!! :clap2: So leave the noose and cans of spray paint at home, and stick to your blog, okay? This isn't just a rule for hate crimes, in general, don't express yourself in an illegal manner, mmkay? Get a job working for the Bush administration, then you can terrorize all the minorities you want legally.

In case you did not get it the first dozen times,I will repeat it for you.
This applies to VANDALISM

Yes, it applies to vandalism, as well as any other crime taken against minorities simply because they are minorities.

Then call it terrorism, do not give it some idiotic convoluted new legal definition whose application is so broad that it threatens my constitutional rights.

:sad4: It's not idiotic or convoluted if you actually knew what it meant. Unfortunately you seem to be having some trouble.

 

[yossarian22]

No, it doesn't. It requires a threat of violence, and then violence. That is all.

I have never heard of a single punch warranting an assault and battery charge.
Maybe if the person was hit with an ax or something.

I read too much news.

Inquirer eh?

Well, then, they'll sympathize with the victim with or without hate crimes law.

And this results in more penalties. We should be trying to alleviate the flaws in the jury system. Not magnify them.

Now if the accuser points to somebody to whom none of evidence points to, it should be suspcious.

In sexual harassment cases, there often is little evidence. But this is irrelevant to hate crime.

I know what it means. No, most of them don't get "dismissal with prejudice", and I don't care if the stigma sticks.

But I do. We need reform there.
I have no ideas how to reform it, but there still needs to be reform.

You can get a case to court with no evidence at all...in order to get a guilty verdict, you need evidence.

The stigma is there. It is difficult to get a job with a rape accusation, especially with no exoneration.

Oh...right here....
The defendant NEVER wins a rape/sexual harassment case, is what you said. This is totally different than "it is rare for a dismissal with prejudice to occur", something which I agree with.

My bad.
I got a bit carried away

In which case any law which classifies crimes into "bad, worse, worst" categories is AMPLIFYING those flaws. How bout just one flat sentence for any crime?

Really?
How does determining if the murder was premeditated amplify anything?

Or how about we can say what we want, but have our speech end where another's personal rights begins. It's a really simple concept. You can say what you want, you can even write what you want on a wall...so long as it's your wall and you aren't writing on mine in an attempt to terrorize me or drive me out of your neighborhood.

Its stupid.
You cannot have it both ways. Either racist thoughts are illegal, or they are not.

Yep. But you don't know what "assault and battery" means, so I'll just drop it.

But you seem determined to stick solely to an absolute definition,so there is little point in continuing.

No, we are prosecuting based on what that vandalism was supposed to do. Mark territory? Declare your love for the world to see? Terrorize minorities? If the latter, you may face a harsher jail sentence.

WHy don't we just make thinking racist thoughts illegal? It is the logical continuation of the law.

So can murder be considered a hate crime? And again HATE CRIME, not CRIME POSSIBLY MOTIVATED BY HATRED. It has a specific meaning, beyond "hmm hate had something to do with this crime", and if you don't know the difference, time to go look it up. We've gone far too long into this conversation for you to continue to play dumb. Next time you do it, I am going to post the :slap:face.

It seems like the definition of hate crime is just a broken substitute for terrorism.
CALL IT WHAT IT IS.

You're still confused, and I think you're still having a **** ton of trouble. You can think racist thoughts, and say racist things. But your "right to be racist" ends when you start using your racism to commit violent acts on, intimidate and terrorize people of color. Period.

You are totally missing the point of my argument.
I am sick of basically saying the same thing over and over, and I assume you are too.
To penalize somebody more severely for a form of expression (please no murder comparison here), you are penalizing a form of thought.

EXACTLY. HOLY ****. Keep your hateful speech and thoughts as speech and thought, and don't use it as an excuse to harm others!!! :clap2:

Hanging somebody is NOT expression. Period.
Writing on somebody's wall IS a form of expression, done in an illegal fashion.
Ya get the difference?

So leave the noose

What the hell is with you and nooses?
Not a form of expression. Stop arguing that it is.

Get a job working for the Bush administration, then you can terrorize all the minorities you want legally.

What does this have to do with anything?

Yes, it applies to vandalism, as well as any other crime taken against minorities simply because they are minorities.

Great. now stop considering killing somebody a form of expression.

:sad4: It's not idiotic or convoluted if you actually knew what it meant. Unfortunately you seem to be having some trouble.

Hmm. hate crime is basically,as you say yourself, terrorizing a group of people merely because of their nationality, religion, etc.
It is basically just a subset of terrorism, using fear to force a specific social change- in this case killing every <group here>.
Don't just invent a new crime that sounds great in speeches and campaign events.

 

[Grappleberry Punch]

I have never heard of a single punch warranting an assault and battery charge.

That must mean it's not assault and battery, then, eh?

Inquirer eh?

If you consider the Inquirer to be news, then I think I have found your problem. :sarcastic

And this results in more penalties. We should be trying to alleviate the flaws in the jury system. Not magnify them.

No, it results in higher penalties for more severe crimes, not more penalties. And it has nothing to do with the jury system, which will still favor the victim.

In sexual harassment cases, there often is little evidence. But this is irrelevant to hate crime.

Testimony from various witnesses, saved emails or phone messages? And I agree, irrelevant.

But I do. We need reform there.
I have no ideas how to reform it, but there still needs to be reform.

Well good for you, think of a better idea than "fine rape victims if the verdict is anything other than 'guilty'". :sarcastic

The stigma is there. It is difficult to get a job with a rape accusation, especially with no exoneration.

Maybe it is. Your point?

How does determining if the murder was premeditated amplify anything?

Higher penalties for more severe crimes? :areyoucra

You cannot have it both ways. Either racist thoughts are illegal, or they are not.

Oh ok. Well then, racist thoughts are are perfectly legal, just like they always been. However, racist action isn't legal.

WHy don't we just make thinking racist thoughts illegal? It is the logical continuation of the law.

Nooo...it's not. It's not illegal to think racist, murderous, or greedy things. But when we act on those thoughts through hate crimes, murderer, or thievery--we get punished.

It seems like the definition of hate crime is just a broken substitute for terrorism.
CALL IT WHAT IT IS.

They are called hate crimes. Maybe you don't like the terminology, but that's not my problem and that's not what we are debating.

You are totally missing the point of my argument.
I am sick of basically saying the same thing over and over, and I assume you are too.
To penalize somebody more severely for a form of expression (please no murder comparison here), you are penalizing a form of thought.

Hmm? Oh ok. So then there shouldn't be a penalty for vandalism at all, since it's all just a "form of expression". :sarcastic So let me "express myself" through keying "Die ****** Die" on my neighbor's car and smashing in his windows. I mean, I can THINK about doing this sort of thing, so when I actually do it, it should be okay, right? :yes: I'm just expressing myself all over his car!! Too bad freedom of expression doesn't extend to his private property.

NOW, if I wanted to scratch "Die ****** Die" into my own car and smash my own windows, then it wouldn't be a hate crime anymore. It's not about the words you use or the medium, it's about trying to terrorize people who are different than you.

Hanging somebody is NOT expression. Period.
Writing on somebody's wall IS a form of expression, done in an illegal fashion.
Ya get the difference?

Both are expressions of racist thoughts. One is simply more severe/threatening than the other, and so gets a higher punishment, but they are both hate crimes.

What the hell is with you and nooses?
Not a form of expression. Stop arguing that it is.

What is it with you and vandalism? :sarcastic Because nooses are the classical symbol of "hate crimes" in America, and generally the first example that comes to mind.

What does this have to do with anything?

Racist thought isn't illegal, and never has been.

Hmm. hate crime is basically,as you say yourself, terrorizing a group of people merely because of their nationality, religion, etc.
It is basically just a subset of terrorism, using fear to force a specific social change- in this case killing every <group here>.
Don't just invent a new crime that sounds great in speeches and campaign events.

Yes, it is a subset of terrorism, like manslaughter is a subset of homicide. It doesn't "sound great" in speeches, it's a way of targeting and dealing with a serious problem. And again, if you have troubles with the terminology, then perhaps you should suggest something like "rename 'hate crime'", not get rid of hate crime laws altogether. And I won't disagree with that.

 

[yossarian22]

That must mean it's not assault and battery, then, eh?

Yep

If you consider the Inquirer to be news, then I think I have found your problem. :sarcastic

I see sarcasm isn't your forte

No, it results in higher penalties

For crimes which basically have no difference.

Well good for you, think of a better idea than "fine rape victims if the verdict is anything other than 'guilty'". :sarcastic

How about, entirely disregard the testimony as to who the raper was as hearsay?

Maybe it is. Your point?

Meaning that if <person x> accused you of rape, you basically have no chance of advancing. You have a high chance of losing your job,unless you have tenure
Higher penalties for more severe crimes? :areyoucra

Oh ok. Well then, racist thoughts are are perfectly legal, just like they always been. However, racist action isn't legal.

Racist actions?
You mean yelling die <minority here> die? Which is basically voicing your thoughts and is assault?

Nooo...it's not. It's not illegal to think racist, murderous, or greedy things. But when we act on those thoughts through hate crimes, murderer, or thievery--we get punished.

Eh, from your arguments you are basically saying that assault motivated by racist thoughts is worse then just assault?
You are threatening somebody. Does it matter who?

Hmm? Oh ok. So then there shouldn't be a penalty for vandalism at all, since it's all just a "form of expression".

Through an illegal means. This applies to one of the largest sections of vandalism.
Guess what it is?
The others could just be considered assault.

What is it with you and vandalism? :sarcastic Because nooses are the classical symbol of "hate crimes" in America, and generally the first example that comes to mind.

Because graffiti is EXPRESSION. FIRST AMENDMENT. How it is expressed just is illegal

Racist thought isn't illegal, and never has been.

But spraying it on a wall is?

Yes, it is a subset of terrorism

Which is not really in our laws at all.
Why?
Because it is redundant.

 

[Grappleberry Punch]

Yep

No, it means you are clueless and need to look up "Assault and battery"

For crimes which basically have no difference.

No, for crimes which have a rather large difference. The emotional and financial impact of a hate crime goes deep, and can lead to more racism, fighting, institutionalized discrimination, paranoia not just between the victim's close friends, but within the entire community. One kid might just have "darkie go to hell" spray painted on his locker, I guarantee every brown person is going to have to look over their shoulder because next time, someone might end up dead. Racism is one of the most poisonous and disgusting elements of American society. So no, I don't think beating a black kid to death just for being black is the same thing as beating someone because you found him having sex with your wife. One is so much more harsh, and therefore, it needs a harsher penalty.

How about, entirely disregard the testimony as to who the raper was as hearsay?

And some people do that. But how is this enforceable by law? Talk about thought crimes.

Meaning that if <person x> accused you of rape, you basically have no chance of advancing. You have a high chance of losing your job,unless you have tenure
Higher penalties for more severe crimes? :areyoucra

Sometimes rumors get spread, and some people might be more cautious around you. **** happens. It's not impossible to get a job after being charged with rape. It's not even that hard. And is it really any higher than accused murderers or child molesters or embezzlement? Probably not.

Racist actions?
You mean yelling die <minority here> die? Which is basically voicing your thoughts and is assault?

No, that's speech, which can be illegal depending on who is doing it where to whom.

Eh, from your arguments you are basically saying that assault motivated by racist thoughts is worse then just assault?
You are threatening somebody. Does it matter who?

There is no such thing as "just assault". It doesn't matter "who", but it <i>always</i> matters "why", in hate crime cases and otherwise.

The others could just be considered assault.

Uh no, look up assault.

Because graffiti is EXPRESSION. FIRST AMENDMENT. How it is expressed just is illegal

Exactly. If you express yourself through terrorizing others, you are no longer protected by the FIRST AMENDMENT.

But spraying it on a wall is?

Depends on who's wall. You can spray whatever you want on your wall. Spray it on that damn darkie's wall? It's no longer protected by the FIRST AMENDMENT, <i>even if it wasn't racist</i>. You can't go around trashing other people's property.

Damn, all the ****** up things going on in the world with respect to the 1st amendment, and you want racist vandalism to be protected under the FIRST AMENDMENT. I MEAN, I CAN THINK IT, BUT WHEN I SPRAY SOME ******'S WALL SO THEY KNOW I MEAN BUSINESS, IT'S ILLEGAL?!?!?!? :slap: Yes, yossarian it is, and it always will be, <I>with or without hate crime laws.</I> Hate crime laws just ensure that if your message was meant to intimidate or terrorize the victim, you will get fined more heavily, because it's a lot more serious.

Which is not really in our laws at all.
Why?
Because it is redundant.

What's not really in our laws? Hate crime and terrorism are both in our laws.

 

[mcteethinator]

He also believes in State's rights. All becaue he's libertarian doesn't mean the States will.

Although his positions will be somewhat harmful to America, he is the most ardent anti-imperialist I've seen and if he's elected, the end of the world might be delayed by a few years.

I myself am an anarcho-syndicalist with some Trotskyite leanings but I'm also a pragmatist when it comes to world affairs and I'm not going to refuse to vote all because I don't believe representational democracy is neccessary.

 

[yossarian22]

No, it means you are clueless and need to look up "Assault and battery"

Have fun telling that to a judge. Yes it is a technical definition, but the courts really do not consider a single punch to be battery.
Prisons are crowded enough as it is.

Racism is one of the most poisonous and disgusting elements of American society. So no, I don't think beating a black kid to death just for being black is the same thing as beating someone because you found him having sex with your wife. One is so much more harsh, and therefore, it needs a harsher penalty.

Hence why they are different already.
Would you like to look up the forms of murder.

And some people do that.

No prosecutor in the country would agree to that. Ever.

But how is this enforceable by law? Talk about thought crimes.

What the hell are you talking about?

Sometimes rumors get spread, and some people might be more cautious around you. **** happens. It's not impossible to get a job after being charged with rape.

Eh, its a glass ceiling at best.

It's not even that hard. And is it really any higher than accused murderers or child molesters or embezzlement? Probably not.

Its considered by most people to be a higher offense.

No, that's speech, which can be illegal depending on who is doing it where to whom.

Eh, its assault. i doubt it would be prosecuted as one though. Probably be broken to disturbing the peace.

There is no such thing as "just assault".

If I threaten you, its assault.
But it will probably not be prosecuted as one.

It doesn't matter "who", but it <i>always</i> matters "why", in hate crime cases and otherwise.

So if I say, I am going to kill you for <action here> it is not as serious as yelling I am going to kill you because of <racial parameter here>?
You are THREATENING somebody in both cases, which is grounds for assault.

Uh no, look up assault.

[SIZE=-1] threatened or attempted physical attack
[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]Is the most common definition I see.
[/SIZE]

Exactly. If you express yourself through terrorizing others, you are no longer protected by the FIRST AMENDMENT.

That is illogical. why should what I write on a blog be different from what I write on a wall? It shouldn't. If it is threatening somebody, its assault or terrorism.
Terrorism is just assault on large scale.

Depends on who's wall. You can spray whatever you want on your wall. Spray it on that damn darkie's wall? It's no longer protected by the FIRST AMENDMENT, <i>even if it wasn't racist</i>. You can't go around trashing other people's property.

Well gee. I certainly didn't know that
See above.

Damn, all the ****** up things going on in the world with respect to the 1st amendment,

I personally love the ability to think whatever the hell I want whenever the hell I want.

and you want racist vandalism to be protected under the FIRST AMENDMENT.

Nope. I just want it to be enforced.
I hate the idea of this becoming a sort of precedent so whatever offends you automatically cannot be expressed, because thats the logical procession of this. Want to stop racism? Great. Just stop plowing through fundamental rights which get in the way.

I MEAN, I CAN THINK IT,

As of now yes.

BUT WHEN I SPRAY SOME ******'S WALL SO THEY KNOW I MEAN BUSINESS, IT'S ILLEGAL?!?!?!?

Ever heard of rational objective debate? Apparently not.

Yes, yossarian it is, and it always will be, <I>with or without hate crime laws.</I>

Nope. Hate crime laws just are great things to wave around in politics, and serve little real purpose because of redundancy.

Hate crime laws just ensure that if your message was meant to intimidate or terrorize the victim, you will get fined more heavily, because it's a lot more serious.

So we just create a new category for it?
No, we already HAVE a system for classifying it. Its terrorism, or assault. Whichever you want to go for, great.

What's not really in our laws? Hate crime and terrorism are both in our laws.

Why should we get rid of it?
Because it is REDUNDANT thats why.
Its against the first amendment thats why.
the continuation of it will stifle free expression.
The law has good intentions, no arguing that, but do not undermine free thought and expression, regardless of how tasteless and bigoted they are.

 

[Grappleberry Punch]

Have fun telling that to a judge. Yes it is a technical definition, but the courts really do not consider a single punch to be battery.

I'm not telling **** to any judge, I'm telling you what 'assault and battery' is. And yea, a single punch can and will be "assualt and battery". That's why we aren't allowed to punch people, not even once.

Hence why they are different already.

Exactly.

What the hell are you talking about?

How do we enforce dismissing everything in the testimony as hearsay? Unless you are talking about the courts dismissing it, in which case LOL, I don't even want to know. Women aren't allowed to report their own rapes anymore.

Eh, its a glass ceiling at best.

Oooh, noooo....trust me, most of the world has a "glass ceiling" on it.

Its considered by most people to be a higher offense.

Prove it. Child molestation, now? Prove it.

So if I say, I am going to kill you for <action here> it is not as serious as yelling I am going to kill you because of <racial parameter here>?
You are THREATENING somebody in both cases, which is grounds for assault.

Yep, they are both grounds for assualt. In the latter, you are threatening an entire racial group, and you are punished accordingly. Tragic, I know.

That is illogical. why should what I write on a blog be different from what I write on a wall? It shouldn't.

That wall is public/private property which doesn't belong to you. Are you really that confused? You can write "Die ****** Die" on your own walls if you want, and it will count for just as much as a blog.

I personally love the ability to think whatever the hell I want whenever the hell I want.

And you do realize that ability is under attack? When I say "under attack" I don't mean your ability to spray "I hate you Darkie!!!" on my wall, because you never had that right and you never will have that right. Sowwy.

I hate the idea of this becoming a sort of precedent so whatever offends you automatically cannot be expressed, because thats the logical procession of this. Want to stop racism? Great. Just stop plowing through fundamental rights which get in the way.

Spraying on people's walls isn't a "fundamental right", yossarian.

So we just create a new category for it?
No, we already HAVE a system for classifying it. Its terrorism, or assault. Whichever you want to go for, great.

And a wide variety of terrorist type crimes against different protected groups are considered "hate crimes", which we can also go for, and it is also great.

Why should we get rid of it?
Because it is REDUNDANT thats why.
Its against the first amendment thats why.
the continuation of it will stifle free expression.

Even if hate crime laws disappeared tomorrow, you still couldn't spray paint on anyones wall. Your "freedom of speech" hasn't suffered, and if your expression is stifled, well too bad. My right to have a home free of your graffiti, my right to live a full life and not have to worry about rednecks coming to burn crosses or worse, is more important than your imaginary right to spray paint on peoples houses. :sorry1:

And no, it's not "redundant", it's just an increased penalty for a more severe crime. :slap: Is "manslaughter" redundant, because it falls under "homicide"? No, of course not, it is a decreased penalty for a less severe crime. Any justice system that doesn't look at motive or result isn't just.

 

[Sthatting]

RUPAUL '08!!!:yes:

Sorry. Just seemed to be getting a little too serious in here.

 

[yossarian22]

I'm not telling **** to any judge, I'm telling you what 'assault and battery' is. And yea, a single punch can and will be "assualt and battery". That's why we aren't allowed to punch people, not even once.

There is a major difference between what happens in a court, and what happens in a lawbook.

Yep, they are both grounds for assualt. In the latter, you are threatening an entire racial group, and you are punished accordingly. Tragic, I know.

So you see the idiocy?
If I say "I will kill everybody in neighborhood Y in town X" I get a lesser sentence than "I will kill every member of <minority> in town X"

That wall is public/private property which doesn't belong to you. Are you really that confused?

And yet the content is the same. The only different is where it is being written. The where should be why you are getting punished. Otherwise what you are writing should be punishable.

And you do realize that ability is under attack?

Spraying on people's walls isn't a "fundamental right", yossarian.

And where do I say it is?

And a wide variety of terrorist type crimes against different protected groups are considered "hate crimes", which we can also go for, and it is also great.

And how is saying "If you are black, I will kill you" any worse than "If you live here, I will kill you"

And no, it's not "redundant", it's just an increased penalty for a more severe crime.

So basically wanting/planning to kill everybody in an area is a less moderate crime than, I will kill every <minority> in an area
That is idiotic.

 

[lilithu]

Wow, it's amazing how many people become self-described liberals when it allows them to talk.

This is why I originally wanted the Liberal Only/Conservative Only forums to be private.