or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › New Federal Hate Crime Law
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

New Federal Hate Crime Law - Page 2

post #41 of 135
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

I don't like double standards any more than you do. Since punishment is doled out "multiplicitously" ie without equity, where society favors one group over another, what is the best way of righting the problem? As I mentioned, the only way anyone has come up with dealing with the basic unfairness of the system has been some form of affirmative action.

It works the other way as well: in New York (and other states), for example, the death penalty can be handed out to someone found guilty of killing, specifically, a cop. I don't agree with the death penalty, but how is the killing of a police officer a worse crime than the killing of someone who is not a police officer? I haven't seen much protest about "equal protection under the law" regarding these laws... perhaps because people don't wish to be called out for "going soft on cop-killers"?

That is actually an excellent point. I think the difference there, however, is that killing a cop is considered an assault on the basic principles of law and order...an assault on the larger civil society itself. You have a point though. As much as both types of crimes are horrible (hate and cop killing), I wouldn't object if both laws were overturned on EPC grounds.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #42 of 135
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by buceta View Post

Oh yes, the guy that feels smart by writing latin words. Of course it is constitutional. Little Bush did sign an executive order banning stem cell research didn't he? This, by comparison is VERY constitutional. Ad infinitum.

No, actually he did not. You've just demonstrated your profound ignorance on this issue, and perhaps on multiple issues. Bush banned FEDERAL FUNDING for NEW lines of stem cells. Existing lines still could receive funding. Private research was not banned.

If you'd prefer not to use latin, then let me put it this way: You are making the argument about your opponent(s), not the issue at hand. People that disagree with you must be discredited as racists, bigots, idiots, haters, liars and what not.



Edit: Psssst: What Bush did, whether or not you agree, was completely constitutional.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #43 of 135
Here's a whole mess of hate.

Of course it isn't according to the law, but that is really the problem with "hate" crimes. It legally codifies who can hate and who can't. All the anti-prop 8 folks mentioned here and their harassing and hateful actions ought to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. However the fact that if any of the actions were returned in the same fashion, the outcome would be different according to the law just shows a true lack of equal protection issue. It shouldn't have started, and it needs to stop.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #44 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

I think that violence against gays is way higher than violence against non-gays.


Also - if violence against gays is such an uncommon thing, why do you care about a law that makes it punished more harshly? It won't have much effect on anything, if gay bashing is so uncommon.

It is, about 3,500 times more common.

They care because.... well they don't.
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #45 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

It is, about 3,500 times more common.

They care because.... well they don't.

Is it? I've looked and showed my source in a previous post. Care to reciprocate?
post #46 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taskiss View Post

Is it? I've looked and showed my source in a previous post. Care to reciprocate?

From post #21 in this thread-

"22 attacks on 295,000,000 = aprox 1 in 13,500,000 assaulted and 1,200 attacks on 4,500,000= aprox 1 in 3,750 assaulted. Seems to me like G&L's are 3,600 times more likely to be assaulted based on sexuality.

And blacks.... "anti white" victims- 908 out of 200,000,000 = 1 in 2,200,000 victims annually

"anti black" victims- 3,434 out of 40,000,000 = 1 in 11,650 victims annually

That's 190 times more black victims than white."
~ Hands Sandon has kindly given permission for the use of his post.
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #47 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

From post #21 in this thread-

"22 attacks on 295,000,000 = aprox 1 in 13,500,000 assaulted and 1,200 attacks on 4,500,000= aprox 1 in 3,750 assaulted. Seems to me like G&L's are 3,600 times more likely to be assaulted based on sexuality.

And blacks.... "anti white" victims- 908 out of 200,000,000 = 1 in 2,200,000 victims annually

"anti black" victims- 3,434 out of 40,000,000 = 1 in 11,650 victims annually

That's 190 times more black victims than white."
~ Hands Sandon has kindly given permission for the use of his post.

Yeah, thought so.

Nope, there are no accurate estimates of the number of people in the G&L category, so you can't use percentages with any degree of accuracy.
post #48 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taskiss View Post

Yeah, thought so.

Nope, there are no accurate estimates of the number of people in the G&L category, so you can't use percentages with any degree of accuracy.

Well double that number if you like and then double it again.

Total G&L's - 9,000,000= 1,800 times more attacks
" " -18,000,000= 900 " " "
" " -36,000,000= 450 " " "
" " -72,000,000= 225 " " "
" " -144,000,000= 112.5 " " "
" " -288,000,000= 56.25 " " "(this would mean nearly everybody in the US was G or L)
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #49 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

That is actually an excellent point. I think the difference there, however, is that killing a cop is considered an assault on the basic principles of law and order...an assault on the larger civil society itself. You have a point though. As much as both types of crimes are horrible (hate and cop killing), I wouldn't object if both laws were overturned on EPC grounds.

If the cop-killer death penalty law was revoked (on EPC of other grounds), do you feel that violent criminals (such as bank robbers etc) would be more inclined to use deadly force against police while committing crimes, knowing that the courts could not go for the ultimate punishment? Similarly, if hate crimes had a 'more severe penalty' attached to them, so you believe that would-be attackers might think twice about committing a hate-crime, knowing the law? In other words, do you feel that "deterrence" really works? (I don't know the answer, and there are no statistics (AFAIK) that I can quote).
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #50 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz View Post

my Spidey Sense tells me that law would be easy enough to build upon somewhere down the road.

So who else do you think might be included at a later date and where do you think this is all leading?
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #51 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

From post #21 in this thread-

"22 attacks on 295,000,000 = aprox 1 in 13,500,000 assaulted and 1,200 attacks on 4,500,000= aprox 1 in 3,750 assaulted. Seems to me like G&L's are 3,600 times more likely to be assaulted based on sexuality.

And blacks.... "anti white" victims- 908 out of 200,000,000 = 1 in 2,200,000 victims annually

"anti black" victims- 3,434 out of 40,000,000 = 1 in 11,650 victims annually

That's 190 times more black victims than white."
~ Hands Sandon has kindly given permission for the use of his post.

In 2007 in the US, there was a 1,408,337 in 300,000,000 chance of being a victim of a violent crime.

That's a 1 in 213 or so chance that any given person in the US was a victim of violent crime.

If 1% of the population was G&L...that means 3,000,000 people are G&L

In 2007, there were 1265 hate crimes committed because of sexual orientation out of that 3,000,000

That's a 1 in 2371 or so chance.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2007/table_01.htm
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/offe...ime/index.html
post #52 of 135
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

If the cop-killer death penalty law was revoked (on EPC of other grounds), do you feel that violent criminals (such as bank robbers etc) would be more inclined to use deadly force against police while committing crimes, knowing that the courts could not go for the ultimate punishment? Similarly, if hate crimes had a 'more severe penalty' attached to them, so you believe that would-be attackers might think twice about committing a hate-crime, knowing the law? In other words, do you feel that "deterrence" really works? (I don't know the answer, and there are no statistics (AFAIK) that I can quote).

Good questions.

1. I don't know. Would they be able to go for the ultimate punishment normally? In other words, is murder in that state punishable by death anyway? If so, I don't think it would incentivize cop killing.

2. No, I really don't. Now, they would think twice if they knew enforcement would be evenly applied, which seems to be the concern about hate crimes anyway.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #53 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

So who else do you think might be included at a later date and where do you think this is all leading?

Speculating on pure conjecture -- I think the ultimate conflict between the Abrahamic religions' positions on homosexual behavior and the West's smut & ritalin-based position will have to come to a [legislative/official] head at some point.

My guess is that once the lie has been established, that gays are perpetrated against in abnormal numbers -- it will be easier to lead the simple minded and ignorant to a mandatory acceptance. (Which we virtually have now anyway.)

I don't know that this matters much in a nation that prides itself on it's porn industry and Saw movie franchise. And this also assumes that American culture is both viable and relevant to the future. In reality, the nation is a declining one with little more to offer the world than the proverbial crack-addled corner whore does. (Unless we can build a worldwide porn empire, that is. But then again, we'd have to borrow the production costs from the Chinese.)

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #54 of 135
Point being, this parallels the "save marriage" movement.

In the context of a nation that allows no-fault divorce, the current discussion over gay marriage becomes virtually meaningless. Marriage in America is, statistically speaking, a bad bet. More marriages fail than work.

Legislation can follow that trend, I suppose -- making marriage officially trivial -- but where is the error?

In the same sense, here in the United States of Girls Gone Wild, can we really have a meaningful conversation about sexual ethics? I don't think so.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #55 of 135
I understand your point about the Constitutionality of race laws, but what got me was that you were surprised about a debate on Facebook degrading into name calling.

What really bothers me about the state of our laws is how a totally unrelated rider like that can be pinned to the tail of a defense authorization act. Seriously, Congress? Do they even attempt to pretend to be 'for the People' anymore?

We will never 'take back' government as long as things like bill riders are allowed, among other problems. Of course, the one who will have to vote to ban them are the ones who benefit from them. Sigh.
You need skeptics, especially when the science gets very big and monolithic. -James Lovelock
The Story of Stuff
Reply
You need skeptics, especially when the science gets very big and monolithic. -James Lovelock
The Story of Stuff
Reply
post #56 of 135
I wonder if this law will protect hetero people from being beaten by homosexual people? Would that be a hate crime?

Or if a black person beat a white person? Would that be a hate crime?

Or if a Muslim beat a Jew, or a Jew beat a Muslim. Would that be a hate crime?
Follow me on Twitter.
Reply
Follow me on Twitter.
Reply
post #57 of 135
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by iPoster View Post

I understand your point about the Constitutionality of race laws, but what got me was that you were surprised about a debate on Facebook degrading into name calling.

I know. Actually, I was pretty shocked. I was respectful in my disagreement. But when pressed for facts--or even logic---the person just went off the deep end.

Quote:

What really bothers me about the state of our laws is how a totally unrelated rider like that can be pinned to the tail of a defense authorization act. Seriously, Congress? Do they even attempt to pretend to be 'for the People' anymore?

Agreed. This needs to change. Sometimes I think If I was a member of Congress, I'd vote no on every single bill.

Quote:

We will never 'take back' government as long as things like bill riders are allowed, among other problems. Of course, the one who will have to vote to ban them are the ones who benefit from them. Sigh.

Ditto.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #58 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by His Dudeness View Post

I wonder if this law will protect hetero people from being beaten by homosexual people? Would that be a hate crime?

In my mind, yes. However, I do wonder if there is any instance, on record, where a gay has beaten up a hetero, because he's straight? My guess is that such might have happened, but it's extremely rare.

Quote:
Or if a black person beat a white person? Would that be a hate crime?

Because he is white? If that was the motivation, of course it's a hate crime.

Quote:
Or if a Muslim beat a Jew,

That would be a hate crime and an act of terrorism

Quote:
or a Jew beat a Muslim.

High of 68ºF, low 50ºF, mostly cloudy, wind from the southwest at 8kt, increasing during the evening to 15kt, and turning southeasterly with a chance of light rain before midnight. La-la-la-la-la...... ♬♬♪♪♫♫♫
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #59 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

In my mind, yes. However, I do wonder if there is any instance, on record, where a gay has beaten up a hetero, because he's straight? My guess is that such might have happened, but it's extremely rare.



Because he is white? If that was the motivation, of course it's a hate crime.



That would be a hate crime and an act of terrorism



High of 68ºF, low 50ºF, mostly cloudy, wind from the southwest at 8kt, increasing during the evening to 15kt, and turning southeasterly with a chance of light rain before midnight. La-la-la-la-la...... ♬♬♪♪♫♫♫

Yep. If a straight guy walks into the wrong bar flauntingly holding his girlfriends hand and the locals take offense and beat the living crap out of them, that's a hate crime by law now.
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #60 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz View Post

Speculating on pure conjecture -- I think the ultimate conflict between the Abrahamic religions' positions on homosexual behavior and the West's smut & ritalin-based position will have to come to a [legislative/official] head at some point.

My guess is that once the lie has been established, that gays are perpetrated against in abnormal numbers -- it will be easier to lead the simple minded and ignorant to a mandatory acceptance. (Which we virtually have now anyway.)

I don't know that this matters much in a nation that prides itself on it's porn industry and Saw movie franchise. And this also assumes that American culture is both viable and relevant to the future. In reality, the nation is a declining one with little more to offer the world than the proverbial crack-addled corner whore does. (Unless we can build a worldwide porn empire, that is. But then again, we'd have to borrow the production costs from the Chinese.)

Do you think blacks are perpetrated against in abnormal numbers? I only ask because you don't think gays are.
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #61 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taskiss View Post

In 2007 in the US, there was a 1,408,337 in 300,000,000 chance of being a victim of a violent crime.

That's a 1 in 213 or so chance that any given person in the US was a victim of violent crime.

If 1% of the population was G&L...that means 3,000,000 people are G&L

In 2007, there were 1265 hate crimes committed because of sexual orientation out of that 3,000,000

That's a 1 in 2371 or so chance.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2007/table_01.htm
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/offe...ime/index.html

I'd say that's a lot personally. Remember these people are going about their lives and boom their attacked in one way or another, not for money or anything they did, but for who they are. That's chilling don't you think?
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #62 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

I'd say that's a lot personally. Remember these people are going about their lives and boom their attacked in one way or another, not for money or anything they did, but for who they are. That's chilling don't you think?

It is a lot - too much. I'm OK with hate crime laws, anything that increases the penalty for violent crime is OK in my book.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

It is, about 3,500 times more common..

It's not, however, 3,500 times more common. It's 100 times LESS common.

But, that's making an assumption on how many G&L there are, and that's not been determined. However, the more there are, the less statistically common it is.
post #63 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taskiss View Post

It's not, however, 3,500 times more common. It's 100 times LESS common.

A G or L has according to the FBI stats that many times more (3,500) chance of being attacked, whether themselves or property than a straight person when attacked because of their sexual orientation. That, of course, is completely different to the overall violent crime number comparison which undoubtedly would make attacks on G&L's a very small percentage of that total. The criteria for the 1,430,000 total violent crimes is calculated differently too. It doesn't include attacks that the 1,265 figure does. With that built in it's quite likely that only about 1 in 2000 violent crimes involve a violent attack on someone because of their sexual orientation.
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #64 of 135
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Yep. If a straight guy walks into the wrong bar flauntingly holding his girlfriends hand and the locals take offense and beat the living crap out of them, that's a hate crime by law now.

Well..sort of. It might be technically, but I'd bet my last dollar it wouldn't be prosecuted that way. So we're back to square one...it's an enforcement problem, not a legal one. It's immoral and illegal to assault/murder someone, and equally immoral/illegal for the police to ignore it---always was.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #65 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Do you think blacks are perpetrated against in abnormal numbers? I only ask because you don't think gays are.

I think so -- but then the leading cause of death for a black man between 15 and 34, is another black man.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr56/nvsr56_05.pdf

And we're assuming that all anti-gay violence is perpetrated by heteros -- and what about suicide among the gay population, which is abnormally high.

That said, we are all statistically at risk for violence (aggravated assault alone) -- 300 million / 800,000 = 1 in 375. If the gay rate is 1.5% or 5 million then the risk of an anti gay assault is 1 in 4,200 -- for that population. It should be empirically obvious what is going on here -- and it has nothing to do with reducing crime.

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

But this is a moot point. The realities were unimportant: the legislation -- the nature of it's introduction alone speaks for itself -- has been made law.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #66 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by His Dudeness View Post

I wonder if this law will protect hetero people from being beaten by homosexual people? Would that be a hate crime?

Or if a black person beat a white person? Would that be a hate crime?

Or if a Muslim beat a Jew, or a Jew beat a Muslim. Would that be a hate crime?

Hate crimes aren't about who, they're about why. It's sorta a separate mens rea, and it has a lot to do with protecting potential scapegoats. If (for some strange reason) one white mean beat another white man (who he thought was black) because he thought the victim was black, the attacker still committed a hate crime. If (in a sort of 'white guilt') a white man beat another white man because the victim was white, that would be a hate crime.

On the other hand, if a white man beats a black man and a white man because they both owed him money, neither is a hate crime. It's only a hate crime if the violence is attributed to targeting a person simply for being who they are.
post #67 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by rasnet View Post

On the other hand, if a white man beats a black man and a white man because they both owed him money, neither is a hate crime. It's only a hate crime if the violence is attributed to targeting a person simply for being who they are.

Another reason as to why motivation is such an important parameter in the investigation and subsequent prosecution of violent crime cases.
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #68 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

Another reason as to why motivation is such an important parameter in the investigation and subsequent prosecution of violent crime cases.

That sounds suspiciously like legislating morality.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #69 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz View Post

That sounds suspiciously like legislating morality.

That's ok, so long as it is the correct morality...
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #70 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz View Post

That sounds suspiciously like legislating morality.

It is legislating morality, as are most laws criminalizing violence.
post #71 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Here's a whole mess of hate.

Of course it isn't according to the law, but that is really the problem with "hate" crimes. It legally codifies who can hate and who can't. All the anti-prop 8 folks mentioned here and their harassing and hateful actions ought to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. However the fact that if any of the actions were returned in the same fashion, the outcome would be different according to the law just shows a true lack of equal protection issue. It shouldn't have started, and it needs to stop.

And George Will discusses more thought crime activities in Washington state by the left. And here's what he says about what happened in CA when the left didn't get their way:

Quote:
The Wall Street Journal's John Fund reports that some Californians who gave financial support to last year's successful campaign for Proposition 8 -- it declared marriage to be only between a man and a woman -- subsequently suffered significant harm. For example, the director of the Los Angeles Film Festival, who contributed $1,500, was forced to resign. So was the manager of a fashionable Los Angeles restaurant who contributed just $100.

Does all of this fall under the category of "liberal fascism"?

Modern day liberals surely seem to be obsessed with what people think and how it should be controlled, silenced or punished when it doesn't fit their own view of "reality".
post #72 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz View Post

That sounds suspiciously like legislating morality.

rasnet, that is known as irony or being ironic.


Quote:
Irony (from the Ancient Greek εἰρωνεία eirōneÃ*a, meaning hypocrisy, deception, or feigned ignorance) is a situation, literary or rhetorical device, in which there is an incongruity, discordance or unintended connection that goes beyond the most evident meaning.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #73 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by involuntary_serf View Post

...
Modern day liberals surely seem to be obsessed with what people think and how it should be controlled, silenced or punished when it doesn't fit their own view of "reality".


And as much as the Left demonizes the Abrahamic religions, left to it's own devices and practiced purely -- Leftist ideology is empirically the most murderous and oppressive force in recent history.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #74 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by involuntary_serf View Post


Does all of this fall under the category of "liberal fascism"?

Modern day liberals surely seem to be obsessed with what people think and how it should be controlled, silenced or punished when it doesn't fit their own view of "reality".

For sure. And here's another case in point. The major internet sites (such as Huffington Post, the Daily Kos, Alternet etc) that represent "liberals" or "Democrats" now have a general rule which states that no thread, commentary or other material in relation to the 9/11 attacks which do not conform 100% to the officially endorsed conspiracy theory, are allowed, and contributors can be barred for breaking this taboo.

Oh my. This is the equivalent to an astronomy forum dealing with the Solar System, but all reference to the planet Jupiter will be deleted, by default.

"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #75 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by involuntary_serf View Post

And George Will discusses more thought crime activities in Washington state by the left. And here's what he says about what happened in CA when the left didn't get their way:



Does all of this fall under the category of "liberal fascism"?

Modern day liberals surely seem to be obsessed with what people think and how it should be controlled, silenced or punished when it doesn't fit their own view of "reality".

"More thought crime activities"\

Disclosure of those names is completely legal. It's the bleeping law, it's allowed! It's just the way it is. Get over it and stop calling them "liberal fascists"!!! But hey, if you believe all those allegations and more allegations in Trumptman's post you probably believe hundreds of gays will be out in force smashing faces in. Sheesh.
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #76 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Disclosure of those names is completely legal. It's the bleeping law, it's allowed!

But is it right?
post #77 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz View Post

And as much as the Left demonizes the Abrahamic religions, left to it's own devices and practiced purely -- Leftist ideology is empirically the most murderous and oppressive force in recent history.


Care to back that up with numbers? It all depends on what you mean by recent history, I suppose.

The largest genocide on record is the Colonization of America - and it isn't in the list, but I'd bet that the African slave trade was #2 (more than Nazi genocide - again, not leftist). China and Soviet union lead the lists in famine, but is that murder? maybe.

Was WWII the fault of leftists? They helped the Germans before the war, but besides that all they did was fail to die (as a state I mean, as individuals 30M of them were butchered by the non-leftist Germans). WWII was mainly caused by the idiot French turning Germany into a failed state after WWI - France may be leftist now, but they were Facists then.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._by_death_toll
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstatv.htm
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #78 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by involuntary_serf View Post

But is it right?

Yep. I highly recommend it too.
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #79 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Yep. I highly recommend it too.

Based on what? Why?
post #80 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

Care to back that up with numbers?...

Whatever the number on the colinalization of America are -- -- that was over 300-500 years ago. The American slave trade was stopped just over 200 years ago. This is not recent history.

The famines that were engineered by the Soviets and elsewhere are only the tip of the iceberg. If you read the history of that time -- otherwise know as living memory -- the litany of genocide by the likes of the Chinese, Nazis, Khmer Rouge, Japanese, etc. is nothing short of astonishing. Which ultra-right ideology took over a country or continent in living memory, and began systematically slaughtering it's citizens? When was the last time that happened at all?

There is both no comparison in any way, shape, or form to how fast the godless can murder just as there is no comparison to the evil swath of oppression that they cut through living memory. The empirical reality is that Leftist ideology is the most verifiably poisonous, and dangerous ideology in widespread existence today.

The closest to competing would be the boogie-man "IslamoFascists" -- and even they can't hold a candle to that track record.

And moving back to 500 years ago, it is a false distinction to draw special attention to one culture's brutality, and pretend that world simply wasn't run that way in general.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › New Federal Hate Crime Law