Nigger

[actsnoblemartin]

I dont think we ban The word Nigger and other offensive words like c u n t, bitch faggot honky cracker gook mick spick, kike, or any other offensive words.

I think its kinda pathetic, we as a nation cant tell the difference between committing an act of violence and thinking things.

And we automatically assume, anyone who is white is racist who thinks or says these things while giving non whites a pass. context, audience, and intent should matter.

I also am passionently against hate crimes.

you cant know what is in someone's heart or mind, and no one should be prosecuted for their beliefs, only their actions.

The only exception is: if someone says: im going to kill, rape or molest someone, regardless of race, religion or anything else

That is a terrorist threat.

Another thing, people should not be threatened with violence, or physically assaulted, because they say a racial slur, or are a racist. Freedom of speech was not for popular speech or pleasant speech, but for speech that is unpopular and unpleasant.

If I am ever called a kike, I would never harm then, I would pity them.

I dont give a dam what people i dont care about think of me

Second, every time a gang fight happens, and a black guy beats up a hispanic, or an chiniese beats up a japanese, yes their are asian gangs, is that a hate crime too?

Perhaps, a mormon fighting an atheist could be a hate crime

see the slippery slope of stupidity.

Also, if a woman kills a man.. is that a hate crime?

what about other way around?

[Hobbit]

1. Banning words violates the First Amendment. Racial slurs are bad to use, but should be legal.

2. Hate crime laws penalize thoughts, a clear violation of the basic human right to have total sovereignty over your own mind. Penalize hate crimes as you would any other crime. 'Hate' is just a motive.

3. It's spelled 'gook.'

4. Giving one person a different sentence than another person based solely on race is racism, even if the person discriminated against is white.

That is all.

[actsnoblemartin]

Thanking you for helping me articulate my point.


1. Banning words violates the First Amendment. Racial slurs are bad to use, but should be illegal.

2. Hate crime laws penalize thoughts, a clear violation of the basic human right to have total sovereignty over your own mind. Penalize hate crimes as you would any other crime. 'Hate' is just a motive.

3. It's spelled 'gook.'

4. Giving one person a different sentence than another person based solely on race is racism, even if the person discriminated against is white.

That is all.

[hjmick]

Who you calling a mick?

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y113/hjmc3rd/leprechaun_dancing_jig.gif

[actsnoblemartin]

I almost fell out of my seat luaghing :lol: :laugh2: :dance:

:clap: :salute:

Nice!


Who you calling a mick?

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y113/hjmc3rd/leprechaun_dancing_jig.gif

[glockmail]

Who you calling a mick?

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y113/hjmc3rd/leprechaun_dancing_jig.gif
Did you just call me a Kraut? :poke:

[82Marine89]

Who you calling a mick?

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y113/hjmc3rd/leprechaun_dancing_jig.gif

Mick's my name, but I'm not a mick.

[hjmick]

Mick's my name, but I'm not a mick.

My name's not Mick, but I am one. :D

[diuretic]

Hah me too, I'm on the register of Irish citizens born outside of Eire :cheers2:

As for hate crimes. They don't penalise thought, they penalise action, but their objective is to deter action. I used to be quite opposed to the concept until I thought about it and then it made sense to me.

[TheSage]

Hah me too, I'm on the register of Irish citizens born outside of Eire :cheers2:

As for hate crimes. They don't penalise thought, they penalise action, but their objective is to deter action. I used to be quite opposed to the concept until I thought about it and then it made sense to me.

The concept of hate crimes is totally fucked. It doesn't make sense. They DO take thought and symbology into consideration. According to the paradigm, hate will only be allowed to spring from premanufactured "divisions in society", frames created by a bunch of academics, lawyers and activists.

[Hagbard Celine]

The concept of hate crimes is totally fucked. It doesn't make sense. They DO take thought and symbology into consideration. According to the paradigm, hate will only be allowed to spring from premanufactured "divisions in society", frames created by a bunch of academics, lawyers and activists.

When a jew, black, gay, woman, white man, etc. is threatened or attacked based solely on his or her ethnicity, sexual preference, creed, etc. the crime is based on hate. Thus making it a "hate" crime. It's not the same as a random violent crime. The fact that the criminal actively targeted the person or persons based on their ethnicity, creed, etc. makes it dispicably premeditated in a way that is different from other crimes. Since it is different, the judiciary treats it differently than other crimes. It's the same reason our judicial system differentiates between first, second and third-degree murder, misdemeanors and felonies.
Get your heads out of your asses. Not everything is black and white. In fact, most things aren't. You also can't pretend that racism/hate doesn't exist or that white people are the only ones "victimized" in society. I think most of you start with this preconcieved notion that you're somehow a 'victim' fighting the world around you. It's a joke.

[darin]

You also can't pretend that racism/hate doesn't exist or that white people are the only ones "victimized" in society. I think most of you start with this preconceived notion that you're somehow a 'victim' fighting the world around you. It's a joke.


What's a joke is your desire to outlaw hate and racism. What's a joke is your seemingly hot desire for Tripod-Trilogy 'capping' of free thought.


When a jew, black, gay, woman, white man, etc. is threatened or attacked based solely on his or her ethnicity, sexual preference, creed, etc. the crime is based on hate. Thus making it a "hate" crime. It's not the same as a random violent crime. The fact that the criminal actively targeted the person or persons based on their ethnicity, creed, etc. makes it dispicably premeditated in a way that is different from other crimes. Since it is different, the judiciary treats it differently than other crimes. It's the same reason our judicial system differentiates between first, second and third-degree murder, misdemeanors and felonies.

You're honestly advocating interpretation of somebody's THOUGHTS when they commit a crime? Who are you, Matt Parker? I can PROMISE the motivation for ANY crime is the same "Somebody wanting to harm another person without regard for that person's safety or health". Doesn't matter if he's a Gay black Jew, or just a cracker. Crime IS hateful. "Hate Crimes" simply penalize white folk based on an assumption of motivation.

:)

[Hagbard Celine]

What's a joke is your desire to outlaw hate and racism. What's a joke is your seemingly hot desire for Tripod-Trilogy 'capping' of free thought.

You're honestly advocating interpretation of somebody's THOUGHTS when they commit a crime? Who are you, Matt Parker? I can PROMISE the motivation for ANY crime is the same "Somebody wanting to harm another person without regard for that person's safety or health". Doesn't matter if he's a Gay black Jew, or just a cracker. Crime IS hateful. "Hate Crimes" simply penalize white folk based on an assumption of motivation.

:)

Nobody's advocating punishment of thought. No one sane would interepret hate-crime legislation this way anyway so my response here is kinda in vain since you obviously do interpret it that way. Nevertheless, I feel I should continue to stress the fact that some crimes are motivated by the perpetrator's HATE for his or her victim's particular ethnicity, race, creed, sexual preference, etc. and that this distinction makes this type of crime particularly heinous due to our society's being against discrimination based on these nomenclatures.
Anyway, why shouldn't we distinguish between a regular mugging and a mugging motivated by the victim's skin color? We can't have criminals running around targeting certain types of people based on some ignorant, hateful ideology. Isn't that what terrorism is? I can't think of anything more important than calling-out and punishing the criminals who commit crime because of their hate-driven motivations.
Walking around hating "niggers" or "fags" or what have you is one thing--I guess you could even call it your "right"--, but commiting crime based-on or motivated by these thoughts is morally reprehensible and should be punished in my opinion--by the by, my opinion concurs with the US judiciary's opinion so I've got pretty good company I think.:poke:

[darin]

Nobody's advocating punishment of thought. No one sane would interepret hate-crime legislation this way anyway so my response here is kinda in vain since you obviously do interpret it that way. Nevertheless, I feel I should continue to stress the fact that some crimes are motivated by the perpetrator's HATE for his or her victim's particular ethnicity, race, creed, sexual preference, etc. and that this distinction makes this type of crime particularly heinous due to our society's being against discrimination based on these nomenclatures.
Anyway, why shouldn't we distinguish between a regular mugging and a mugging motivated by the victim's skin color? We can't have criminals running around targeting certain types of people based on some ignorant, hateful ideology. Isn't that what terrorism is? I can't think of anything more important than calling-out and punishing the criminals who commit crime because of their hate-driven motivations.
Walking around hating "niggers" or "fags" or what have you is one thing, but commiting crime based-on or motivated by these thoughts is morally reprehensible and should be punished in my opinion--by the by, my opinion concurs with the US judiciary's opinion so I've got pretty good company I think.:poke:


You can never PROVE somebody's motivation like that. What happens with this hate-crime BS is ANY minority hold significant legal power of intimidation against any majority member.

If I beat your arse because I don't like the way you reply to me, all you'd have to do is claim I called you 'fagbard' and say I beat you up because you're gay.

See? Ridiculous example I know - but that's the kind of ludicrousness that "hate crime" legislation brings.

[Hagbard Celine]

You can never PROVE somebody's motivation like that. What happens with this hate-crime BS is ANY minority hold significant legal power of intimidation against any majority member.

If I beat your arse because I don't like the way you reply to me, all you'd have to do is claim I called you 'fagbard' and say I beat you up because you're gay.

See? Ridiculous example I know - but that's the kind of ludicrousness that "hate crime" legislation brings.

That's true. I think the test of proving that a crime is a "hate" crime should be more stringent. But I'm arguing against the statement by some that hatecrime legislation should be done away with because "there's no such thing." That's simply not true. Here's another hypothetical situation:

If a group of guys break into an Indian (dots not feathers) household and spraypaint "dotheads" on the walls, it's pretty obvious that the crime was motivated by hate. You don't think crimes like this where the hate motivation can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt should be prosecuted more harshly than a regular break-in and destruction of property?

[darin]

That's true. I think the test of proving that a crime is a "hate" crime should be more stringent. But I'm arguing against the statement by some that hatecrime legislation should be done away with because "there's no such thing." That's simply not true.

I think the argument isn't "There's no such thing" - i think it's "Hate" can be reasonably applied to MOST crimes.


Here's another hypothetical situation:

If a group of guys break into an Indian (dots not feathers) household and spraypaint "dotheads" on the walls, it's pretty obvious that the crime was motivated by hate. You don't think crimes like this where the hate motivation can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt should be prosecuted more harshly than a regular break-in and destruction of property?

No. You are advocating prosecuting a protected opinion. I think they should be prosecuted for break-in and destruction of property - same as if they broke in and 'tagged' the walls with whatever. The behaivour is the SAME - and should be punished. Maybe painting 'dotheads' didn't mean they hate the dot-indians. Maybe they just really didn't LIKE them?

[Hagbard Celine]

I think the argument isn't "There's no such thing" - i think it's "Hate" can be reasonably applied to MOST crimes.



No. You are advocating prosecuting a protected opinion. I think they should be prosecuted for break-in and destruction of property - same as if they broke in and 'tagged' the walls with whatever. The behaivour is the SAME - and should be punished. Maybe painting 'dotheads' didn't mean they hate the dot-indians. Maybe they just really didn't LIKE them?

Would you feel differently if a gang of blacks or Mexicans broke into your house and spraypainted "Cracker c*nt" over your marriage bed? Would you still advocate only punishing the actual crime of break-in and destruction of property and not the intent?

[darin]

Would you feel differently if a gang of blacks or Mexicans broke into your house and spraypainted "Cracker c*nt" over your marriage bed? Would you still advocate only punishing the actual crime and not the intent?

yeah. I don't give a rat's behind if somebody thinks I'm white. I would give a rat's ass if Mexicans broke in and painted our wall, because I'd have to move furniture so my wife could re-paint the bedroom. Plus...the paint SHE wants is expensive. :(

Most of it. Recently she's used "Kilz" from WalMart I think. Pretty good stuff.

[Hobbit]

If a man kills another man because that man is sleeping with his wife, is that crime not based on hate.

If a man thinks his employer is stiffing him, so he breaks into the guy's house, vandalizes it, and steals a bunch of his stuff, is that crime not based in hate?

I two girls at a high school tear each others' hair out because they're both trying to win the affection of the same guy, is that crime not based in hate?

Oh, and here's a really good one for you. If a group of black men beat a white man they ever met within an inch of his life simply because he's white, is that crime not based in hate? If so, then why are these crimes never prosecuted as hate crimes and, in fact, rarely pursued with anywhere near the fervency of crimes where the races are reversed?

Let's face the truth and call things what they are. A 'hate crime' isn't about hate at all. What a 'hate crime' really is is a politically incorrect crime.

[darin]

Form Hobbit's link in his Illiberal Statism thread:


If you are one of those who thinks speech codes are “not that bad” you are truly misguided. Speech codes seek to prevent free speech (an actual constitutional right) under the guise of preventing offense (not an actual constitutional right) and under the authority of the state.

[TheSage]

That's true. I think the test of proving that a crime is a "hate" crime should be more stringent. But I'm arguing against the statement by some that hatecrime legislation should be done away with because "there's no such thing." That's simply not true. Here's another hypothetical situation:

If a group of guys break into an Indian (dots not feathers) household and spraypaint "dotheads" on the walls, it's pretty obvious that the crime was motivated by hate. You don't think crimes like this where the hate motivation can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt should be prosecuted more harshly than a regular break-in and destruction of property?


The argument isn't that "there's no such thing". All crimes are hate, and hate due to ethnicity is no worse that random hate.

[Hagbard Celine]

The argument isn't that "there's no such thing". All crimes are hate, and hate due to ethnicity is no worse that random hate.

Okay, so I guess we shouldn't differentiate between any types of crime. Get rid of the three degrees of murder. Get rid of the nomenclatures "misdemeanor" and "felony." Throw-out the differences we currently recognize between robbery, burglary and armed robbery. While we're at it, get rid of the label "traffic offense." Crime is crime right? Treat it all the same. Mandatory public canings for any and all offenses. That should do the trick. :rolleyes:

[darin]

Okay, so I guess we shouldn't differentiate between any types of crime. Get rid of the three degrees of murder. Get rid of the nomenclatures "misdemeanor" and "felony." Throw-out the differences we currently recognize between robbery, burglary and armed robbery. While we're at it, get rid of the label "traffic offense." Crime is crime right? Treat it all the same. Mandatory public canings for any and all offenses. That should do the trick. :rolleyes:

:shrug:


Also Known as: Black & White Thinking.
Description of False Dilemma

A False Dilemma is a fallacy in which a person uses the following pattern of "reasoning":

1. Either claim X is true or claim Y is true (when X and Y could both be false).
2. Claim Y is false.
3. Therefore claim X is true.

This line of "reasoning" is fallacious because if both claims could be false, then it cannot be inferred that one is true because the other is false. That this is the case is made clear by the following example:

1. Either 1+1=4 or 1+1=12.
2. It is not the case that 1+1=4.
3. Therefore 1+1=12.

In cases in which the two options are, in fact, the only two options, this line of reasoning is not fallacious. For example:

1. Bill is dead or he is alive.
2. Bill is not dead.
3. Therefore Bill is alive.

Examples of False Dilemma

1. Senator Jill: "We'll have to cut education funding this year."
Senator Bill: "Why?"
Senator Jill: "Well, either we cut the social programs or we live with a huge deficit and we can't live with the deficit."

2. Bill: "Jill and I both support having prayer in public schools."
Jill: "Hey, I never said that!"
Bill: "You're not an atheist are you Jill?"

3. "Look, you are going to have to make up your mind. Either you decide that you can afford this stereo, or you decide you are going to do without music for a while."

4. TheSage: We shoudn't classify Crimes based on perceived 'hatred'.
Hagbard: Are you saying we should remove ALL CLASSIFICATION and degrees to Crimes???!!??

[Hagbard Celine]

:shrug:

Gotchya. (farts loudly)

Also check out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pot_calling_the_kettle_black

[darin]

Gotchya. (farts loudly)

Also check out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pot_calling_the_kettle_black

hah..funny. When cornered your reply is "...no...YOU ARE!"

Nice.

[TheSage]

:shrug:


Excellent work here, Darin. You skewered this punk like the pseudointellectual pretty boy he is.

[diuretic]

The concept of hate crimes is totally fucked. It doesn't make sense. They DO take thought and symbology into consideration. According to the paradigm, hate will only be allowed to spring from premanufactured "divisions in society", frames created by a bunch of academics, lawyers and activists.

Firstly, apologies to readers. I'm in a separate time zone so this thread has taken off while I've been busy elsewhere so I'm going to be going through and contributing where I can and where I must.

Hate crimes do make sense and this is how:

The idea of making an action (note, I chose that word carefully) a crime is to declare that action unacceptable. In theory that action should cease to exist in society, but we know that in practice it doesn't. That being so, legislatures have found it necessary to tack on a punishment for committing a crime, but the theoretical objective of extinguishing the action still exists. Legislatures hope that having punishment will extinguish or at least reduce the instances of the criminal action. And it works to a degree.

Punishment is generally assigned to crimes on the basis of the effect they have on society. So murder gets the big penalties while driving over the speed limit gets the small penalties. We want to deter murder so we award execution or life imprisonment for it because of its effect on society; speeding is a problem but nowhere near as big as murder so speeding doesn't have a big penalty attached to it.

So making something a crime is about deterrence. Deterrence is also about proclivity. Legislatures want to make sure that crimes that have a high rate of proclivity and which have a serious deleterious effect on society are deterred. That means the punishment has to be on the serious end of the scale. Now let me give an example.

Two men are walking down the street. Man A is in a charcoal suit, carrying a briefcase, the stereotypical businessman. Man B is mincing down the street and wearing pink hot pants and a white tee shirt with "Gay Sex Is the Real Thing" on the front. Should either of these men be assaulted for their appearance? Of course not.

Now Man C is also walking down the street. Man C has a problem with homosexual men, he despises them. He sees Man A and Man B. How likely is Man C to assault Man A? Not that likely unless he's after the briefcase in which case he's just another mugger. How likely is he to assault Man B? He sees Man B is obviously gay and proud of it. Man B is less safe at that time and place than is Man A. But Man C stops, he remembers that assaulting a gay person will get him five years in prison. Five years. That's a long time to be someone's cell bitch. He keeps walking. He ignores the businessman because they're obviously both Republicans (hey I'm kidding) and while he spits on the footpath (sidewalk) as Man B minces past, he doesn't assault him.

That's my understanding of the rationale. Well anyway it makes sense to me.


You can never PROVE somebody's motivation like that. What happens with this hate-crime BS is ANY minority hold significant legal power of intimidation against any majority member.

If I beat your arse because I don't like the way you reply to me, all you'd have to do is claim I called you 'fagbard' and say I beat you up because you're gay.

See? Ridiculous example I know - but that's the kind of ludicrousness that "hate crime" legislation brings.

I could prove motivation inside fifteen minutes. It's simply a matter of asking the right questions.


If a man kills another man because that man is sleeping with his wife, is that crime not based on hate.

No, it's based on the idea that another man has violated his sexual property.




If a man thinks his employer is stiffing him, so he breaks into the guy's house, vandalizes it, and steals a bunch of his stuff, is that crime not based in hate?

No and in a case in my jurisdiction some years ago a bloke did exactly this and was acquitted because the court accepted his defence of claim of right.

I two girls at a high school tear each others' hair out because they're both trying to win the affection of the same guy, is that crime not based in hate?



Oh, and here's a really good one for you. If a group of black men beat a white man they ever met within an inch of his life simply because he's white, is that crime not based in hate? If so, then why are these crimes never prosecuted as hate crimes and, in fact, rarely pursued with anywhere near the fervency of crimes where the races are reversed?

Yes, it is. And when I accidentally bumped into a black woman at Orlando Airport as I was lugging two big suitcases and the black man with her erupted into a stream of vitriol calling me a "white motherfucking honky!" (trust me I remember every word) and if he'd come after me and beat me, he should face sentencing for an assault that was race-based because he interpreted my actions as a racial slight on the woman he was with.



Let's face the truth and call things what they are. A 'hate crime' isn't about hate at all. What a 'hate crime' really is is a politically incorrect crime.

No it's not, not at all.


The argument isn't that "there's no such thing". All crimes are hate, and hate due to ethnicity is no worse that random hate.

Ken Lay didn't hate the people he defrauded.

dmp - it's also called the fallacy of the excluded middle - as in"

"You're either with us or you're with the terra-ists"

I didn't see Hagbard committing that fallacy. What I saw was Hagbard effectively using ridicule and hyperbole. There was no fallacy because there was no claim being made, he was having a spray - and a bloody good one too :laugh2:

[TheSage]

dmp - it's also called the fallacy of the excluded middle - as in"

"You're either with us or you're with the terra-ists"

I didn't see Hagbard committing that fallacy. What I saw was Hagbard effectively using ridicule and hyperbole. There was no fallacy because there was no claim being made, he was having a spray - and a bloody good one too :laugh2:

Hyperbole functions as a false dilemma when the absurd rhetoric is presented as one of the options. It's also similar to strawman fallacy when the hyperbole is a complete oversimplified absurdity. Technically.

[Hagbard Celine]

hah..funny. When cornered your reply is "...no...YOU ARE!"

Nice.

That's ridiculous. YOU and THE SAGE are the ones who are saying all crime is the same, all crime is hate. YOU are the ones who believe we shouldn't differentiate between a regular crime and a hate crime. What I posted is an ironic elaboration on what you posited. It's called sarcasm. Get clued in.
It's ridiculous to say we shouldn't punish people for their motivations. We do it every day already in murder trials, robbery trials, etc. That's WHY we have distinctions like murder one, second degree murder, third degree and so on. Jesus Christ. Sometimes I feel like I've walked into the middle of a SPED class on this board.

[Hobbit]

Firstly, apologies to readers. I'm in a separate time zone so this thread has taken off while I've been busy elsewhere so I'm going to be going through and contributing where I can and where I must.

Hate crimes do make sense and this is how:

The idea of making an action (note, I chose that word carefully) a crime is to declare that action unacceptable. In theory that action should cease to exist in society, but we know that in practice it doesn't. That being so, legislatures have found it necessary to tack on a punishment for committing a crime, but the theoretical objective of extinguishing the action still exists. Legislatures hope that having punishment will extinguish or at least reduce the instances of the criminal action. And it works to a degree.

Punishment is generally assigned to crimes on the basis of the effect they have on society. So murder gets the big penalties while driving over the speed limit gets the small penalties. We want to deter murder so we award execution or life imprisonment for it because of its effect on society; speeding is a problem but nowhere near as big as murder so speeding doesn't have a big penalty attached to it.

So making something a crime is about deterrence. Deterrence is also about proclivity. Legislatures want to make sure that crimes that have a high rate of proclivity and which have a serious deleterious effect on society are deterred. That means the punishment has to be on the serious end of the scale. Now let me give an example.

Two men are walking down the street. Man A is in a charcoal suit, carrying a briefcase, the stereotypical businessman. Man B is mincing down the street and wearing pink hot pants and a white tee shirt with "Gay Sex Is the Real Thing" on the front. Should either of these men be assaulted for their appearance? Of course not.

Now Man C is also walking down the street. Man C has a problem with homosexual men, he despises them. He sees Man A and Man B. How likely is Man C to assault Man A? Not that likely unless he's after the briefcase in which case he's just another mugger. How likely is he to assault Man B? He sees Man B is obviously gay and proud of it. Man B is less safe at that time and place than is Man A. But Man C stops, he remembers that assaulting a gay person will get him five years in prison. Five years. That's a long time to be someone's cell bitch. He keeps walking. He ignores the businessman because they're obviously both Republicans (hey I'm kidding) and while he spits on the footpath (sidewalk) as Man B minces past, he doesn't assault him.

That's my understanding of the rationale. Well anyway it makes sense to me.


Except that Man C is already guilty of a crime. To change the sentence based on his choice of victim is to penalize him based on his thoughts at the time. It is the criminalization of thought.

Besides, what if Man C chose Man B because he thought the guy was a weak target or because that guy cut in front of him in line at the post office or some other politically correct reason to hate him, but Man B tells the cops that the guy was saying 'faggot' the whole time? Man C has little credibility because he assault the guy, and is now guilty of a 'hate crime,' and gets a harsher sentence simply because he chose the wrong victim.

The only thing 'hate crime' laws teach people is that you should only commit crimes against white male Christians or people of your own ethnicity and religion.

[Hagbard Celine]

Except that Man C is already guilty of a crime. To change the sentence based on his choice of victim is to penalize him based on his thoughts at the time. It is the criminalization of thought.

Besides, what if Man C chose Man B because he thought the guy was a weak target or because that guy cut in front of him in line at the post office or some other politically correct reason to hate him, but Man B tells the cops that the guy was saying 'faggot' the whole time? Man C has little credibility because he assault the guy, and is now guilty of a 'hate crime,' and gets a harsher sentence simply because he chose the wrong victim.

The only thing 'hate crime' laws teach people is that you should only commit crimes against white male Christians or people of your own ethnicity and religion.

So were you mentally retarded from birth or did you have a horrible accident to make you that way?

[Hobbit]

So were you mentally retarded from birth or did you have a horrible accident to make you that way?

Description of Ad Hominem

Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:

1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B makes an attack on person A.
3. Therefore A's claim is false.

The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).
Example of Ad Hominem

1. Bill: "I believe that abortion is morally wrong."
Dave: "Of course you would say that, you're a priest."
Bill: "What about the arguments I gave to support my position?"
Dave: "Those don't count. Like I said, you're a priest, so you have to say that abortion is wrong. Further, you are just a lackey to the Pope, so I can't believe what you say."

Not to mention that's probably the most childish retort I've heard in over a year.

[Nukeman]

So were you mentally retarded from birth or did you have a horrible accident to make you that way?
there are more black on white crime in the US than white on black crime, yet the percentages of whites charged with hate crimes are astronamical campared to the percentages of blacks charged with hate crimes against whites.

Prime example... the Jena 6, if they had been white beating up a single black boy they would have been charged with hate crimes!!!!

[Hagbard Celine]

Description of Ad Hominem

Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:

1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B makes an attack on person A.
3. Therefore A's claim is false.

The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).
Example of Ad Hominem

1. Bill: "I believe that abortion is morally wrong."
Dave: "Of course you would say that, you're a priest."
Bill: "What about the arguments I gave to support my position?"
Dave: "Those don't count. Like I said, you're a priest, so you have to say that abortion is wrong. Further, you are just a lackey to the Pope, so I can't believe what you say."

Not to mention that's probably the most childish retort I've heard in over a year.
Hey! It's Dictionary Joe! What's the definition of "vapid" Joe? :poke:

Uh oh! I probably won't see it coming if you say it's me! DUUUUUHHH!!!

[Yurt]

When a jew, black, gay, woman, white man, etc. is threatened or attacked based solely on his or her ethnicity, sexual preference, creed, etc. the crime is based on hate. Thus making it a "hate" crime. It's not the same as a random violent crime. The fact that the criminal actively targeted the person or persons based on their ethnicity, creed, etc. makes it dispicably premeditated in a way that is different from other crimes. Since it is different, the judiciary treats it differently than other crimes. It's the same reason our judicial system differentiates between first, second and third-degree murder, misdemeanors and felonies.
Get your heads out of your asses. Not everything is black and white. In fact, most things aren't. You also can't pretend that racism/hate doesn't exist or that white people are the only ones "victimized" in society. I think most of you start with this preconcieved notion that you're somehow a 'victim' fighting the world around you. It's a joke.


Can you cite to where a black person committed a crime against a white person and it was labeled a racist or hate crime? And then they were actually convicted of a hate crime.

[Hobbit]

Hey! It's Dictionary Joe! What's the definition of "vapid" Joe? :poke:

Uh oh! I probably won't see it coming if you say it's me! DUUUUUHHH!!!

asinine

Main Entry:
as·i·nine Listen to the pronunciation of asinine
Pronunciation:
\ˈa-sə-ˌnīn\
Function:
adjective
Etymology:
Latin asininus, from asinus ass
Date:
15th century

1 : extremely or utterly foolish <an asinine excuse> 2 : of, relating to, or resembling an ass
synonyms see simple
— as·i·nine·ly adverb
— as·i·nin·i·ty Listen to the pronunciation of asininity \ˌa-sə-ˈni-nə-tē\ noun

[Hagbard Celine]

Can you cite to where a black person committed a crime against a white person and it was labeled a racist or hate crime? And then they were actually convicted of a hate crime.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/02/nyregion/02shootout.html?n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/People/H/Hartocollis,%20Anemona

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=2971308

All I did was google "Black man sentenced in hate crime." You guys are idiots.

[Yurt]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/02/nyregion/02shootout.html?n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/People/H/Hartocollis,%20Anemona

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=2971308

All I did was google "Black man sentenced in hate crime." You guys are idiots.

No, you gave two examples. I googled exactly what you quoted, and that did give the same results. In fact, your alleged google produced gay crimes as well. However, your provided the evidence I asked for, so, fair enough.

Do you think the ratio is the same for blacks vs white with regards to hate crime? I ask, because you actually had to google it/investigate it. Are you telling me that blacks get charged with hate crimes the same as whites?

[Hagbard Celine]

No, you gave two examples. I googled exactly what you quoted, and that did give the same results. In fact, your alleged google produced gay crimes as well. However, your provided the evidence I asked for, so, fair enough.

Do you think the ratio is the same for blacks vs white with regards to hate crime? I ask, because you actually had to google it/investigate it. Are you telling me that blacks get charged with hate crimes the same as whites?

I doubt that blacks and others have been charged with hate crimes as much as whites.

[carbonbased]

I think it is unfortunate that the label for those crimes has become "Hate crimes".

Hate is an utterly basic human emotion and is presumably a driving force in many crimes. Much smarter people than I have spent their lives in understanding hate, where it comes from and what it does to our minds.

The actions defined under the label of "Hate crime" actually has more to do with other things than hate. The fear has brought the feeling of hate forward bucause people tend to start hating what they fear. But people also starts to fear what they cannot understand.

What makes people physically attack people they hate, fear and don't understand? It is not that easy really. First we need to downgrade the group to be attacked. In fact, they must almost not be seen as humans at all. Not a very easy task, but we do it naturally: By using other names for the people of the target group, we point out and exaggerate differances and we do this over time so it settels with us.

As ancient the phenomenon is we still generally fail to see it coming. But we do see the effects - the crimes. So what to do? Banning words? Harder punishments?

On topic:
I think banning words is not going to work. (Worth a try though). Nazis called jews "jews" and still managed to stay on their bloody course. The most effective way to kill disparaging words is when the attacked group accepts the label and stand proud of it. Easier said than done though, but it happens. Anyway, the word "Nigger" is already being used that way.

Slightly off:
Punishment? I don't believe harder punishment per se will do much about this, but labelling the crime different might. A person is not guilty of only "harassement" but rather a very naive and unintelligent form of harassement.

To continue:
What would be a better label than "Hate crime"?