It would be totally awesome if you could actually engage with the debate that's going on right now instead of the magical fairy tale debate against the big bad tolerance police in your head.
I am totally for favoritism, in fact. I think the guy who steals bread for his starving family should serve less time than the guy who steals bread to set on fire in front of a jew's house. I am truly sorry that this blows your mind.
I'd say that the older the jurisprudence probably the more in need it is of an update.
I don't see the magical awesomeness of having justice dispensed as if from a machine. Life is complicated and messy and sorting through it requires a system that has more nuance than "one size fits all."
But there is no way to truly assess a persons reasoning for a crime, and so punishment could be increased or decreased under false pretences.
Err... that's what trials are for. You know, that whole "reasonable doubt" thing?
Isn't that more to do with the judge assessing the crime as actually have happening though? As in, there is a reasonable doubt that the defendant may have been acting in self-defence.
I think the reasoning should only come into play in that circumstance, within the protection of oneself or of another. Other than that, someone beating someone because they're ugly, or they're unintelligent, or of a stereotype that person believes, shouldn't come into play.
Beating a minor sure, hang the fucker. Beat a woman sure, have the fucker raped.
It would be totally awesome if you could actually engage with the debate that's going on right now instead of the magical fairy tale debate against the big bad tolerance police in your head.
I am totally for favoritism, in fact. I think the guy who steals bread for his starving family should serve less time than the guy who steals bread to set on fire in front of a jew's house. I am truly sorry that this blows your mind.
That is why we have judges! They can make personal decisions... with guidelines!
Hahaha. This thread is now going downhill fast. How long before we can bring in gender differences? I hear women have, on average, lower upper body strength then men.
Why is it that they're just so damn good at cooking and cleaning? :P
they are genetically pre-disposed to it. Years of picking berries and nut, give them better attention to detail and better visual acuity. The motion of a rag againt a dirty wall or floor is much the same as hunting and gathering.
Men of course should get out the house and fulfill all their latent hunting desires.
Good and nature agree, women should be at home bare foot and pregnant.
I am totally for favoritism, in fact. I think the guy who steals bread for his starving family should serve less time than the guy who steals bread to set on fire in front of a jew's house. I am truly sorry that this blows your mind.
I think we should assess his punishment based on his history of food-related thievery. I mean if he's only been stealing bread then he's probably malnourishing his kids. Responsible subsistance-level crime here people!
electricitylikesme on
0
Options
JacobkoshGamble a stamp.I can show you how to be a real man!Moderatormod
edited August 2007
The idea that we can't do anything without perfect information is just alien to me - it reminds me of Dustin Hoffman trying to choose an airline in "Rain Man."
More to the point, if you want to call the system into question, you should be able to point to an epidemic of people who have been cruelly missentenced and wasted away in gaol because they were just comitting a robbery because they were hungry and that swastika on their forehead was merely an unfortunate coincidence.
We can trade in hypotheticals all day long but at the end of the day all anyone's been able to muster against hate crimes laws are that they're not fair to horrible people. I can live with that.
Jacobkosh on
0
Options
JacobkoshGamble a stamp.I can show you how to be a real man!Moderatormod
I think we should assess his punishment based on his history of food-related thievery. I mean if he's only been stealing bread then he's probably malnourishing his kids. Responsible subsistance-level crime here people!
It would be totally awesome if you could actually engage with the debate that's going on right now instead of the magical fairy tale debate against the big bad tolerance police in your head.
I am totally for favoritism, in fact. I think the guy who steals bread for his starving family should serve less time than the guy who steals bread to set on fire in front of a jew's house. I am truly sorry that this blows your mind.
This ... does blow my mind. No, I can't wrap my mind around this. Setting fires to bread. How would you even light it?
Now look, you, I'm not trying to say hate crime laws drive as large a divide as Jim Crowe laws did back in the day. I'm saying both are wrong, though.
There shouldn't be stigmas attached to anyone for their beliefs because it makes us less fit to be fair citizens. That line of thinking is dangerous, it lumps people together, it's the easy road. Not every German soldier in WW2 was a Nazi, ya know. Not every person with privately held racial prejudices is a dangerous racist that lobs burning crosses around. Just don't be intolerant of anyone and I think we'll be better off.
The idea that we can't do anything without perfect information is just alien to me - it reminds me of Dustin Hoffman trying to choose an airline in "Rain Man."
More to the point, if you want to call the system into question, you should be able to point to an epidemic of people who have been cruelly missentenced and wasted away in gaol because they were just comitting a robbery because they were hungry and that swastika on their forehead was merely an unfortunate coincidence.
We can trade in hypotheticals all day long but at the end of the day all anyone's been able to muster against hate crimes laws are that they're not fair to horrible people. I can live with that.
Well, unless those being sentenced for the hate crime didn't commit a hate crime but did it for other reasons that you may view as noble. (Say the guy saw the other one hit a woman, but nobody will come forward as they either didn't see it or don't want to, and there is no evidence for it.)
Also, you can't say whether or not there is an epidemic of those being unfairly sentenced for their reasoning because there is no sure fire, 100%, way of knowing their reasoning.
It would be totally awesome if you could actually engage with the debate that's going on right now instead of the magical fairy tale debate against the big bad tolerance police in your head.
I am totally for favoritism, in fact. I think the guy who steals bread for his starving family should serve less time than the guy who steals bread to set on fire in front of a jew's house. I am truly sorry that this blows your mind.
This ... does blow my mind. No, I can't wrap my mind around this. Setting fires to bread. How would you even light it?
Now look, you, I'm not trying to say hate crime laws drive as large a divide as Jim Crowe laws did back in the day. I'm saying both are wrong, though.
There shouldn't be stigmas attached to anyone for their beliefs because it makes us less fit to be fair citizens. That line of thinking is dangerous, it lumps people together, it's the easy road. Not every German soldier in WW2 was a Nazi, ya know. Not every person with privately held racial prejudices is a dangerous racist that lobs burning crosses around. Just don't be intolerant of anyone and I think we'll be better off.
So you're saying that not every German soldier was a Nazi, so it is important to think about people's beliefs to decide whether they're ok or not? You're 'lumping people together' - we're arguing for differentiating between people based on what they think and do.
And once again since you have a special debating style - is there such a thing as right and wrong? Is it wrong to hurt other people? Or are you going to keep up this 'debate' where you don't respond to others' posts?
Also, you can't say whether or not there is an epidemic of those being unfairly sentenced for their reasoning because there is no sure fire, 100%, way of knowing their reasoning.
You can use this argument against anything ever, so I'm not particularly interested in why it proves that hate crimes laws are unfair. Yes, we may never know the whole truth. But you know what, again, in real life, which is to say, in the not-internet, it's not that damn ambiguous. A flaming cross, a swastika, these are the things that get the book thrown at them.
Jacobkosh on
0
Options
Podlyyou unzipped me! it's all coming back! i don't like it!Registered Userregular
Also, you can't say whether or not there is an epidemic of those being unfairly sentenced for their reasoning because there is no sure fire, 100%, way of knowing their reasoning.
You can use this argument against anything ever, so I'm not particularly interested in why it proves that hate crimes laws are unfair. Yes, we may never know the whole truth. But you know what, again, in real life, which is to say, in the not-internet, it's not that damn ambiguous. A flaming cross, a swastika, these are the things that get the book thrown at them.
Oh hell sure if it's flamingly obvious then you can know, but there are levels to everything. I guess we start to argue over semantics and border lines after a while and it becomes inconsequential. I agree to find what you say true but not being right in my opinion.
So what if I speak in hyperbole. Doesn't change the fact that being a racist is one of the worst things you can be in America. If you go around being racist people will hate you. Go into any bar, classroom, national TV or whatever and proclaim "I hate you dirty n******, j***, c*****, f*****, c****, s****, k*****, g****..." and watch your reputation go down the shitter. Maybe even get your ass kicked. You can never live it down. It's life in social prison. Where your fellow inmates are other racists.
Also, you can't say whether or not there is an epidemic of those being unfairly sentenced for their reasoning because there is no sure fire, 100%, way of knowing their reasoning.
You can use this argument against anything ever, so I'm not particularly interested in why it proves that hate crimes laws are unfair. Yes, we may never know the whole truth. But you know what, again, in real life, which is to say, in the not-internet, it's not that damn ambiguous. A flaming cross, a swastika, these are the things that get the book thrown at them.
Oh hell sure if it's flamingly obvious then you can know, but there are levels to everything. I guess we start to argue over semantics and border lines after a while and it becomes inconsequential. I agree to find what you say true but not being right in my opinion.
Ambiguity works well enough with what constitutes art and what only appeal to the prurient interests of people. It also works for copyright infringement and slander. Heck, even with murders there is the question of insanity.
Couscous on
0
Options
Podlyyou unzipped me! it's all coming back! i don't like it!Registered Userregular
So what if I speak in hyperbole. Doesn't change the fact that being a racist is one of the worst things you can be in America. If you go around being racist people will hate you. Go into any bar, classroom, national TV or whatever and proclaim "I hate you dirty n******, j***, c*****, f*****, c****, s****, k*****, g****..." and watch your reputation go down the shitter. Maybe even get your ass kicked. You can never live it down. It's life in social prison. Where your fellow inmates are other racists.
Unless you make friends with the millions of other racists out there.
JacobkoshGamble a stamp.I can show you how to be a real man!Moderatormod
edited August 2007
There are not really "levels" to how hate-crimes laws are applied. They're used in pretty clear circumstances. If it's not "right" then you need to bust out the philosophy to show why one-size-fits-all justice is better.
So what if I speak in hyperbole. Doesn't change the fact that being a racist is one of the worst things you can be in America. If you go around being racist people will hate you. Go into any bar, classroom, national TV or whatever and proclaim "I hate you dirty n******, j***, c*****, f*****, c****, s****, k*****, g****..." and watch your reputation go down the shitter. Maybe even get your ass kicked. You can never live it down. It's life in social prison. Where your fellow inmates are other racists.
Unless you make friends with the millions of other racists out there.
That's what I just said. What the fuck did I just say?
So what if I speak in hyperbole. Doesn't change the fact that being a racist is one of the worst things you can be in America. If you go around being racist people will hate you. Go into any bar, classroom, national TV or whatever and proclaim "I hate you dirty n******, j***, c*****, f*****, c****, s****, k*****, g****..." and watch your reputation go down the shitter. Maybe even get your ass kicked. You can never live it down. It's life in social prison. Where your fellow inmates are other racists.
So what you're saying is, you can easily prevent your reputation from going down the shitter by not being a racist.
So what if I speak in hyperbole. Doesn't change the fact that being a racist is one of the worst things you can be in America. If you go around being racist people will hate you. Go into any bar, classroom, national TV or whatever and proclaim "I hate you dirty n******, j***, c*****, f*****, c****, s****, k*****, g****..." and watch your reputation go down the shitter. Maybe even get your ass kicked. You can never live it down. It's life in social prison. Where your fellow inmates are other racists.
There are not really "levels" to how hate-crimes laws are applied. They're used in pretty clear circumstances. If it's not "right" then you need to bust out the philosophy to show why one-size-fits-all justice is better.
I don't believe in one-size-fits-all justice being better. I merely think that believing that hurting someone for one reason is worse than hurting someone just as badly for another reason is better.
In that it leads that judgement shouldn't be passed based on the motivation for the crime. Take it into account to find the killer hell yes, but don't say that because they were killed for x reason you should be punished worse. I wouldn't feel better that because my brother was killed in a drunk fight that his killers should not be given as bad a punishment as those who kill due to a different reason.
It would be totally awesome if you could actually engage with the debate that's going on right now instead of the magical fairy tale debate against the big bad tolerance police in your head.
I am totally for favoritism, in fact. I think the guy who steals bread for his starving family should serve less time than the guy who steals bread to set on fire in front of a jew's house. I am truly sorry that this blows your mind.
This ... does blow my mind. No, I can't wrap my mind around this. Setting fires to bread. How would you even light it?
Now look, you, I'm not trying to say hate crime laws drive as large a divide as Jim Crowe laws did back in the day. I'm saying both are wrong, though.
There shouldn't be stigmas attached to anyone for their beliefs because it makes us less fit to be fair citizens. That line of thinking is dangerous, it lumps people together, it's the easy road. Not every German soldier in WW2 was a Nazi, ya know. Not every person with privately held racial prejudices is a dangerous racist that lobs burning crosses around. Just don't be intolerant of anyone and I think we'll be better off.
So you're saying that not every German soldier was a Nazi, so it is important to think about people's beliefs to decide whether they're ok or not? You're 'lumping people together' - we're arguing for differentiating between people based on what they think and do.
And once again since you have a special debating style - is there such a thing as right and wrong? Is it wrong to hurt other people? Or are you going to keep up this 'debate' where you don't respond to others' posts?
What? Debate? Whether they're ok or not? I'm saying don't be quick to condemn and you're writing about something hate crime laws and then you say I'm off in LaLa land. What debate?
There are not really "levels" to how hate-crimes laws are applied. They're used in pretty clear circumstances. If it's not "right" then you need to bust out the philosophy to show why one-size-fits-all justice is better.
I don't believe in one-size-fits-all justice being better. I merely think that believing that hurting someone for one reason is worse than hurting someone just as badly for another reason is better.
In that it leads that judgement shouldn't be passed based on the motivation for the crime. Take it into account to find the killer hell yes, but don't say that because they were killed for x reason you should be punished worse. I wouldn't feel better that because my brother was killed in a drunk fight that his killers should not be given as bad a punishment as those who kill due to a different reason.
That was an example by the way and didn't happen.
I'm sure last time we had this debate, someone pointed out to you the difference between pre-meditated murder and 'accidental' (eg, hit them in a bar fight) type of murder. I absolutely support the legal distinction between the two and am baffled that you don't.
There are not really "levels" to how hate-crimes laws are applied. They're used in pretty clear circumstances. If it's not "right" then you need to bust out the philosophy to show why one-size-fits-all justice is better.
I don't believe in one-size-fits-all justice being better. I merely think that believing that hurting someone for one reason is worse than hurting someone just as badly for another reason is better.
In that it leads that judgement shouldn't be passed based on the motivation for the crime. Take it into account to find the killer hell yes, but don't say that because they were killed for x reason you should be punished worse. I wouldn't feel better that because my brother was killed in a drunk fight that his killers should not be given as bad a punishment as those who kill due to a different reason.
That was an example by the way and didn't happen.
I'm sure last time we had this debate, someone pointed out to you the difference between pre-meditated murder and 'accidental' (eg, hit them in a bar fight) type of murder. I absolutely support the legal distinction between the two and am baffled that you don't.
I'm sure he understands the legal distinction. I think Johannen is arguing that killing someone accidentally and planning and executing a murder should garner the same punishment.
I'm not entirely sure I disagree, either.
Like, if I steal bread because I'm starving or I steal bread because I wanted to sell it for five dollars so I could buy crack...well, the crime is unchanged. The motivation isn't the crime, stealing the bread is the crime.
My muscular buttocks it isn't. 40 years ago I couldn't open a bank account without a written note from my male guardian, let alone earn two degrees, live and work where I choose, and opt out of reproducing before 25. Take your stupid braindead version of moral relativism and shove it.
Anyways, as vocal as the comments are getting (as vocal as what would would happen if I mentioned a Jew should be the next President in a 1950s barbershop) women professionals still earn 83% of their male counterparts so I'm just saying we shouldn't have swelled heads.
And in the fifties, women got paid less than half, with no recourse and little of the same promotional chances. The fact that we still have some way to go does not mean that we are not better than the fifties. We are better than the fifties.
So what if I speak in hyperbole. Doesn't change the fact that being a racist is one of the worst things you can be in America. If you go around being racist people will hate you. Go into any bar, classroom, national TV or whatever and proclaim "I hate you dirty n******, j***, c*****, f*****, c****, s****, k*****, g****..." and watch your reputation go down the shitter. Maybe even get your ass kicked. You can never live it down. It's life in social prison. Where your fellow inmates are other racists.
good?
Oh, it can always get worse. Free speech has limitations (in casket's example, it goes against common sense) but isn't there a slippery slope? First we discourage prejudice, then we hate racism, then we outlaw racism, then we go one step more?
My muscular buttocks it isn't. 40 years ago I couldn't open a bank account without a written note from my male guardian, let alone earn two degrees, live and work where I choose, and opt out of reproducing before 25. Take your stupid braindead version of moral relativism and shove it.
Anyways, as vocal as the comments are getting (as vocal as what would would happen if I mentioned a Jew should be the next President in a 1950s barbershop) women professionals still earn 83% of their male counterparts so I'm just saying we shouldn't have swelled heads.
And in the fifties, women got paid less than half, with no recourse and little of the same promotional chances. The fact that we still have some way to go does not mean that we are not better than the fifties. We are better than the fifties.
And now your all uppity, with your pre-nups and "it's not ok to hit women"
So what if I speak in hyperbole. Doesn't change the fact that being a racist is one of the worst things you can be in America. If you go around being racist people will hate you. Go into any bar, classroom, national TV or whatever and proclaim "I hate you dirty n******, j***, c*****, f*****, c****, s****, k*****, g****..." and watch your reputation go down the shitter. Maybe even get your ass kicked. You can never live it down. It's life in social prison. Where your fellow inmates are other racists.
good?
Oh, it can always get worse. Free speech has limitations (in casket's example, it goes against common sense) but isn't there a slippery slope? First we discourage prejudice, then we hate racism, then we outlaw racism, then we go one step more?
listen fuckmonkeys: tolerance =/= approval. That's why casket isn't banned yet. I'm wholly tolerant of his ability to be a trolling, mouthbreathing mental deficient, but I retain the right to call him such and thoroughly disapprove of his words. The same goes for emenememewhatevergetarealname's insistence that NAMBLA and the Childcare Worker's Union of America are fundamentally the same kind of organisation, and therefore we shouldn't judge.
I'm sure last time we had this debate, someone pointed out to you the difference between pre-meditated murder and 'accidental' (eg, hit them in a bar fight) type of murder. I absolutely support the legal distinction between the two and am baffled that you don't.
I don't think i've actually had this debate before, also I absolutally understand the distinction between accidental and real murder.
Posts
It would be totally awesome if you could actually engage with the debate that's going on right now instead of the magical fairy tale debate against the big bad tolerance police in your head.
I am totally for favoritism, in fact. I think the guy who steals bread for his starving family should serve less time than the guy who steals bread to set on fire in front of a jew's house. I am truly sorry that this blows your mind.
Isn't that more to do with the judge assessing the crime as actually have happening though? As in, there is a reasonable doubt that the defendant may have been acting in self-defence.
I think the reasoning should only come into play in that circumstance, within the protection of oneself or of another. Other than that, someone beating someone because they're ugly, or they're unintelligent, or of a stereotype that person believes, shouldn't come into play.
Beating a minor sure, hang the fucker. Beat a woman sure, have the fucker raped.
True, but it's never infallible.
I know you're correct in some of this, but that doesn't mean that I believe a lot of it is right and good.
they are genetically pre-disposed to it. Years of picking berries and nut, give them better attention to detail and better visual acuity. The motion of a rag againt a dirty wall or floor is much the same as hunting and gathering.
Men of course should get out the house and fulfill all their latent hunting desires.
Good and nature agree, women should be at home bare foot and pregnant.
I think we should assess his punishment based on his history of food-related thievery. I mean if he's only been stealing bread then he's probably malnourishing his kids. Responsible subsistance-level crime here people!
More to the point, if you want to call the system into question, you should be able to point to an epidemic of people who have been cruelly missentenced and wasted away in gaol because they were just comitting a robbery because they were hungry and that swastika on their forehead was merely an unfortunate coincidence.
We can trade in hypotheticals all day long but at the end of the day all anyone's been able to muster against hate crimes laws are that they're not fair to horrible people. I can live with that.
Javert 2007: Nutrition Police
This ... does blow my mind. No, I can't wrap my mind around this. Setting fires to bread. How would you even light it?
Now look, you, I'm not trying to say hate crime laws drive as large a divide as Jim Crowe laws did back in the day. I'm saying both are wrong, though.
There shouldn't be stigmas attached to anyone for their beliefs because it makes us less fit to be fair citizens. That line of thinking is dangerous, it lumps people together, it's the easy road. Not every German soldier in WW2 was a Nazi, ya know. Not every person with privately held racial prejudices is a dangerous racist that lobs burning crosses around. Just don't be intolerant of anyone and I think we'll be better off.
Well, unless those being sentenced for the hate crime didn't commit a hate crime but did it for other reasons that you may view as noble. (Say the guy saw the other one hit a woman, but nobody will come forward as they either didn't see it or don't want to, and there is no evidence for it.)
Also, you can't say whether or not there is an epidemic of those being unfairly sentenced for their reasoning because there is no sure fire, 100%, way of knowing their reasoning.
So you're saying that not every German soldier was a Nazi, so it is important to think about people's beliefs to decide whether they're ok or not? You're 'lumping people together' - we're arguing for differentiating between people based on what they think and do.
And once again since you have a special debating style - is there such a thing as right and wrong? Is it wrong to hurt other people? Or are you going to keep up this 'debate' where you don't respond to others' posts?
Today the worst thing you could be in America is a Racist. Followed by being a Pedophile. Then murderer, etc....
That's not even close to being true.
Oh fuck now there's two of them.
Does the USA have the death penalty for being a racist? Life imprisonment? No?
Then don't talk crap.
You can use this argument against anything ever, so I'm not particularly interested in why it proves that hate crimes laws are unfair. Yes, we may never know the whole truth. But you know what, again, in real life, which is to say, in the not-internet, it's not that damn ambiguous. A flaming cross, a swastika, these are the things that get the book thrown at them.
Seriously. Though it is interesting how some cultural criticisms paedophilophobia as a trait specific to our post-industrial condition.
But that's another thread. :P
right, so do most people. That's why child fuckers and murderers go to jail, and people roll there eyes at racists.
Oh hell sure if it's flamingly obvious then you can know, but there are levels to everything. I guess we start to argue over semantics and border lines after a while and it becomes inconsequential. I agree to find what you say true but not being right in my opinion.
Ambiguity works well enough with what constitutes art and what only appeal to the prurient interests of people. It also works for copyright infringement and slander. Heck, even with murders there is the question of insanity.
Unless you make friends with the millions of other racists out there.
That's what I just said. What the fuck did I just say?
The system works!
Is this a bad thing, Casket? Is that what you're saying?
Ummm...the opposite?
good?
I don't believe in one-size-fits-all justice being better. I merely think that believing that hurting someone for one reason is worse than hurting someone just as badly for another reason is better.
In that it leads that judgement shouldn't be passed based on the motivation for the crime. Take it into account to find the killer hell yes, but don't say that because they were killed for x reason you should be punished worse. I wouldn't feel better that because my brother was killed in a drunk fight that his killers should not be given as bad a punishment as those who kill due to a different reason.
That was an example by the way and didn't happen.
What? Debate? Whether they're ok or not? I'm saying don't be quick to condemn and you're writing about something hate crime laws and then you say I'm off in LaLa land. What debate?
I'm sure last time we had this debate, someone pointed out to you the difference between pre-meditated murder and 'accidental' (eg, hit them in a bar fight) type of murder. I absolutely support the legal distinction between the two and am baffled that you don't.
I'm sure he understands the legal distinction. I think Johannen is arguing that killing someone accidentally and planning and executing a murder should garner the same punishment.
I'm not entirely sure I disagree, either.
Like, if I steal bread because I'm starving or I steal bread because I wanted to sell it for five dollars so I could buy crack...well, the crime is unchanged. The motivation isn't the crime, stealing the bread is the crime.
And in the fifties, women got paid less than half, with no recourse and little of the same promotional chances. The fact that we still have some way to go does not mean that we are not better than the fifties. We are better than the fifties.
Oh, it can always get worse. Free speech has limitations (in casket's example, it goes against common sense) but isn't there a slippery slope? First we discourage prejudice, then we hate racism, then we outlaw racism, then we go one step more?
Link
And now your all uppity, with your pre-nups and "it's not ok to hit women"
wooooo noooooo not a slippery slope. You're totally right, that's exactly how it would go down. You are the greatest debater ever.
listen fuckmonkeys: tolerance =/= approval. That's why casket isn't banned yet. I'm wholly tolerant of his ability to be a trolling, mouthbreathing mental deficient, but I retain the right to call him such and thoroughly disapprove of his words. The same goes for emenememewhatevergetarealname's insistence that NAMBLA and the Childcare Worker's Union of America are fundamentally the same kind of organisation, and therefore we shouldn't judge.
Drez got the gist of it.