RE: Was This A Hate Crime?

RE: Was This A Hate Crime? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

BamaD -> RE: Was This A Hate Crime? (5/25/2015 8:54:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle All that has happened is this: You have nominated the principle to be applied, and I have applied precisely along the lines you have nominated. Of course the end result makes you sound stupid but that is because the principle you nominated is stupid. ETA: You will be surprised to learn that your position in this matter mirrors that of leading post modernist thinker Michel Foucault who had an interest in jurisprudence. Foucault argued that crime should be punished purely on the basis of the act (because, among other reasons, it is impossible to know what anyone is really thinking; and to do otherwise would be trying and punishing people for their identity and not their behaviour). So it would seem, that to your thinking, prior to the concept of hate crimes it was impossible, just from the facts, to tell the difference between self defense and murder. But then you don't believe in self defense do you?

tweakabelle -> RE: Was This A Hate Crime? (5/25/2015 9:09:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle All that has happened is this: You have nominated the principle to be applied, and I have applied precisely along the lines you have nominated. Of course the end result makes you sound stupid but that is because the principle you nominated is stupid. ETA: You will be surprised to learn that your position in this matter mirrors that of leading post modernist thinker Michel Foucault who had an interest in jurisprudence. Foucault argued that crime should be punished purely on the basis of the act (because, among other reasons, it is impossible to know what anyone is really thinking; and to do otherwise would be trying and punishing people for their identity and not their behaviour). So it would seem, that to your thinking, prior to the concept of hate crimes it was impossible, just from the facts, to tell the difference between self defense and murder. But then you don't believe in self defense do you? Please don't try to put words in my mouth. I'm perfectly capable of speaking for myself thanks. In this particular exchange of posts, I have not advanced any of my own views at all. So any attempt by you to impute that certain words or views are mine is purely an invention by you. All I have done is apply the principles you nominated to reality and found them very wanting, to be unworthy of consideration.

cloudboy -> RE: Was This A Hate Crime? (5/25/2015 9:17:13 PM)
What comes to my mind is peanut-brained.

BamaD -> RE: Was This A Hate Crime? (5/25/2015 9:35:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle All that has happened is this: You have nominated the principle to be applied, and I have applied precisely along the lines you have nominated. Of course the end result makes you sound stupid but that is because the principle you nominated is stupid. ETA: You will be surprised to learn that your position in this matter mirrors that of leading post modernist thinker Michel Foucault who had an interest in jurisprudence. Foucault argued that crime should be punished purely on the basis of the act (because, among other reasons, it is impossible to know what anyone is really thinking; and to do otherwise would be trying and punishing people for their identity and not their behaviour). So it would seem, that to your thinking, prior to the concept of hate crimes it was impossible, just from the facts, to tell the difference between self defense and murder. But then you don't believe in self defense do you? Please don't try to put words in my mouth. I'm perfectly capable of speaking for myself thanks. In this particular exchange of posts, I have not advanced any of my own views at all. So any attempt by you to impute that certain words or views are mine is purely an invention by you. All I have done is apply the principles you nominated to reality and found them very wanting, to be unworthy of consideration. I noticed that, all you have done is to pretend to be so superior that you can simply proclaim your gospel and we are all to believe. if you don't want words put in your mouth don't put them in mine. And don't talk down to me when you have made it clear you can't even follow what I am saying.

HunterCA -> RE: Was This A Hate Crime? (5/25/2015 10:27:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle All that has happened is this: You have nominated the principle to be applied, and I have applied precisely along the lines you have nominated. Of course the end result makes you sound stupid but that is because the principle you nominated is stupid. ETA: You will be surprised to learn that your position in this matter mirrors that of leading post modernist thinker Michel Foucault who had an interest in jurisprudence. Foucault argued that crime should be punished purely on the basis of the act (because, among other reasons, it is impossible to know what anyone is really thinking; and to do otherwise would be trying and punishing people for their identity and not their behaviour). So it would seem, that to your thinking, prior to the concept of hate crimes it was impossible, just from the facts, to tell the difference between self defense and murder. But then you don't believe in self defense do you? Please don't try to put words in my mouth. I'm perfectly capable of speaking for myself thanks. In this particular exchange of posts, I have not advanced any of my own views at all. So any attempt by you to impute that certain words or views are mine is purely an invention by you. All I have done is apply the principles you nominated to reality and found them very wanting, to be unworthy of consideration. I noticed that, all you have done is to pretend to be so superior that you can simply proclaim your gospel and we are all to believe. if you don't want words put in your mouth don't put them in mine. And don't talk down to me when you have made it clear you can't even follow what I am saying. Unfortunately, that's what she does.

CreativeDominant -> RE: Was This A Hate Crime? (5/25/2015 10:56:59 PM)
A little more on hate crimes...the interviewer is Michael Martin from National Public Radio and the guest is Paul Butler, law professor at George Washington University Law School. Hrs also a former federal prosecutor and the author of DIets Get Free: A Hip-Hop Theory of a Justice". MARTIN: And another criticism of hate crimes laws is that they punish thoughts, not behaviors. You know, the argument being that the behavior - assault, homicide, whatever is already punishable by the law and, in this case, you're punishing a thought. It's a thought crime. Do you have any thoughts about that? BUTLER: You know, as a civil libertarian, as a big fan of the First Amendment, I have to say it concerns me. So, if we think about the Rutgers bullying case, if Mr. Ravi had been convicted of intimidating the victim there because he was a nerd or because he was skinny, then he'd get five years in prison. Because he was convicted of intimidating him because he's gay or is perceived to be gay, he gets 10 years. So it does seem like we're getting awfully close to punishing thought crimes. I think bigotry, including homophobia, is wrong, but I think, in a free society, you have the right to think what you want, no matter how wrong it is. MARTIN: Is there any kind of ongoing dialog around hate crimes laws in the academy or anywhere else? BUTLER: Sure. Well, there's a big academic debate centering around whether we really are punishing people for what they think and then when we look at what lawmakers do, you know, in Florida, after another hate crime, heinous crime against a homeless person, they actually broadened the category of hate crimes to include homelessness in Florida. And there were a lot of groups that were against that because they thought that was watering it down too much. In Oklahoma, where we're now looking at this heinous crime, there was a concern about including homosexuals. So again, there's a big debate, but almost every state now has these laws. And, you know, before, I've been in here talking about how many people we're locking up and how many crimes we have, so politicians, prosecutors - they kind of like these because it's like, the more people we're locking up, the more they can say they're tough on crime. I just don't know if they're needed." The rest of the interview is here: http://www.npr.org/2012/04/10/150351860/are-hate-crime-laws-necessary

tweakabelle -> RE: Was This A Hate Crime? (5/26/2015 1:48:08 AM)
quote: tweakabelle . In this particular exchange of posts, I have not advanced any of my own views at all. quote: BamaD I noticed that, all you have done is to pretend to be so superior that you can simply proclaim your gospel and we are all to believe. If you wonder why I have described your posts as stupid just look above. I assure you that I haven't advanced any of my own views on this issue and you accuse me of "proclaim[ing] your gospel" If I haven't stated my own views, how can I possibly "proclaim" any "gospel"? If you keep posting at this standard, expect more responses from me just like those above. quote: don't talk down to me when you have made it clear you can't even follow what I am saying. Darling I would love to stop talking down to you. Unfortunately, as things stand that is a little difficult. I have no intentions of lowering my standards just to please you. However if you lift your game and actually post something thoughtful and intelligent instead of trying to make stupid excuses for bigots to freely exercise their bigotry, I will be delighted to respond positively. So the matter is entirely in your hands.

KenDckey -> RE: Was This A Hate Crime? (5/26/2015 1:51:49 AM)
http://www.tpnn.com/2015/05/25/video-isis-burns-woman-alive-for-refusing-extreme-sex-act/ Hate crime

tweakabelle -> RE: Was This A Hate Crime? (5/26/2015 1:59:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey http://www.tpnn.com/2015/05/25/video-isis-burns-woman-alive-for-refusing-extreme-sex-act/ Hate crime Yes. Horrifying. Heart-breaking.

cloudboy -> RE: Was This A Hate Crime? (5/26/2015 5:39:24 AM)
I thought the motive here was extortion. ($40,000.00)

Sanity -> RE: Was This A Hate Crime? (5/26/2015 7:59:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey http://www.tpnn.com/2015/05/25/video-isis-burns-woman-alive-for-refusing-extreme-sex-act/ Hate crime Theres no real outcry here though, for obvious reasons.

Sanity -> RE: Was This A Hate Crime? (5/26/2015 8:04:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy I thought the motive here was extortion. ($40,000.00) Thats because of your ideological blinders. Its been pointed out in the thread already that after they got the money (and there was no motive for extortion) they poured gasoline on the boy and burned him alive.

joether -> RE: Was This A Hate Crime? (5/26/2015 9:40:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy I thought the motive here was extortion. ($40,000.00) Thats because of your ideological blinders. Its been pointed out in the thread already that after they got the money (and there was no motive for extortion) they poured gasoline on the boy and burned him alive. I recall in the history books some anti-gay conservatives tying a gentleman named Matthew Shepard to their truck and driving down the road until he was not only dead, but dismembered. We dont have to cross either ocean to find examples of hateful people doing evil things to good people that have suffered through hate. We just look in our own country. Plenty of hateful individuals in our country; they all seem to vote GOP/TP right now.... Hate and evil know no boundaries nor borders. You wear your ideological blinders not because someone has forced them on, but wear them proudly because you placed them there!

BamaD -> RE: Was This A Hate Crime? (5/26/2015 9:42:00 AM)
If you wonder why I have described your posts as stupid just look above. I assure you that I haven't advanced any of my own views on this issue and you accuse me of "proclaim[ing] your gospel" If I haven't stated my own views, how can I possibly "proclaim" any "gospel"? If you keep posting at this standard, expect more responses from me just like those above. It is gospel because you expect me and others to accept on faith that I am wrong and stupid just because you have proclaimed it to be so with no proof. That is proclaiming the gospel according to Tweak, we aren't to question, just to hear and obey.

BamaD -> RE: Was This A Hate Crime? (5/26/2015 9:43:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle quote: tweakabelle . In this particular exchange of posts, I have not advanced any of my own views at all. quote: BamaD I noticed that, all you have done is to pretend to be so superior that you can simply proclaim your gospel and we are all to believe. If you wonder why I have described your posts as stupid just look above. I assure you that I haven't advanced any of my own views on this issue and you accuse me of "proclaim[ing] your gospel" If I haven't stated my own views, how can I possibly "proclaim" any "gospel"? If you keep posting at this standard, expect more responses from me just like those above. quote: don't talk down to me when you have made it clear you can't even follow what I am saying. Darling I would love to stop talking down to you. Unfortunately, as things stand that is a little difficult. I have no intentions of lowering my standards just to please you. However if you lift your game and actually post something thoughtful and intelligent instead of trying to make stupid excuses for bigots to freely exercise their bigotry, I will be delighted to respond positively. So the matter is entirely in your hands. Read CD's post, it seems that far more qualified people than you agree with me.

BamaD -> RE: Was This A Hate Crime? (5/26/2015 10:16:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle All that has happened is this: You have nominated the principle to be applied, and I have applied precisely along the lines you have nominated. Of course the end result makes you sound stupid but that is because the principle you nominated is stupid. ETA: You will be surprised to learn that your position in this matter mirrors that of leading post modernist thinker Michel Foucault who had an interest in jurisprudence. Foucault argued that crime should be punished purely on the basis of the act (because, among other reasons, it is impossible to know what anyone is really thinking; and to do otherwise would be trying and punishing people for their identity and not their behaviour). So it would seem, that to your thinking, prior to the concept of hate crimes it was impossible, just from the facts, to tell the difference between self defense and murder. But then you don't believe in self defense do you? Please don't try to put words in my mouth. I'm perfectly capable of speaking for myself thanks. In this particular exchange of posts, I have not advanced any of my own views at all. So any attempt by you to impute that certain words or views are mine is purely an invention by you. All I have done is apply the principles you nominated to reality and found them very wanting, to be unworthy of consideration. You claim it is stupid to claim that hate crimes are thought crimes. I realized that this is beyond your comprehension but that means you don't think it is true. So tell me, as far as the actions, not the thought. What is the difference between beating a straight person and beating a gay? None the only difference it the thought. Go down the list, hate crimes are only an additional penalty for wrong thinking. If you had a federal hate crime law that combined all the protected groups the only people in this country not protected would be straight white males with homes. So the effect would be that you would, by law be penalized less for committing a crime against this group than anyone else, wouldn't that be a hate crime? There are so many protected groups that in effect any crime not committed against a straight white male is a hate crime. As I pointed out in another thread you should put autotype on unworthy of consideration as that is your view of anything that you disagree with.

JVoV -> RE: Was This A Hate Crime? (5/26/2015 12:24:31 PM)
Hate crimes are determined by the motivation behind targeting the victim. And can unfortunately only apply if the victim is a defined & protected class, regardless of what the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment says. Unless you have a prosecutor with the balls to actually do it. In this case, extortion does seem to be the primary motive. Murder was likely to get rid of the witnesses. What was done to the boy deserves a special place in Hell, but I doubt a proper sentence could ever be given by our courts.

BamaD -> RE: Was This A Hate Crime? (5/26/2015 1:14:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy I thought the motive here was extortion. ($40,000.00) Thats because of your ideological blinders. Its been pointed out in the thread already that after they got the money (and there was no motive for extortion) they poured gasoline on the boy and burned him alive. I recall in the history books some anti-gay conservatives tying a gentleman named Matthew Shepard to their truck and driving down the road until he was not only dead, but dismembered. We dont have to cross either ocean to find examples of hateful people doing evil things to good people that have suffered through hate. We just look in our own country. Plenty of hateful individuals in our country; they all seem to vote GOP/TP right now.... Hate and evil know no boundaries nor borders. You wear your ideological blinders not because someone has forced them on, but wear them proudly because you placed them there! Big surprise, you got it wrong. The guy who got drug was named Byrd. He was murdered because he was black. It happened in Texas in 2000. They didn't have a hate crime law so the attackers got away with it. Two got the death penalty and one got life. But horror of horrors none of them got five years for hate crimes. And the idea that all the hate and violence comes from the right is just another leftest delusion.

cloudboy -> RE: Was This A Hate Crime? (5/26/2015 1:51:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle I have no intentions of lowering my standards just to please you. However if you lift your game and actually post something thoughtful and intelligent instead of trying to make stupid excuses for bigots to freely exercise their bigotry, I will be delighted to respond positively. So the matter is entirely in your hands. That's it. Bama needs to up his game. It's amazing how folks here don't see the difference between opinions and informed opinions.

cloudboy -> RE: Was This A Hate Crime? (5/26/2015 1:55:36 PM)
Like I said, the motive was $40,000.00. Killing witnesses afterward --- the motive there is to cover one's tracks. Dead men tell no tales. A heinous crime is not a hate crime. Criminal behavior in essence is anti-social and hateful. Curious how you haven't been able to make the case that this crime is a hate crime. When asked to make the case, you oddly get offended and refuse to do it.

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625