Not at all, Tim.
Ted, its not only unreasonable but nasty, but it doesn't make much sense for us to keep replying "yes it is"m "no it isn't" for the next year.
If you really felt that way, you would not have started your statement out with "its not only unreasonable but nasty". You are determined to have the last word.
In any case, its quite amazing to me that you can only see Bush's side. I see both sides and I can understand her anger and frustration; I also can understand why Bush would be upset.....but that is part of his job, she is a private citizen, trying to rectify the wrong against her father. EOM.
"Unless racism is somehow a crime itself your whole argument falls apart."
Racism is not the only form of hate crimes.......they run the gamut.
Fine then change that to "Unless hate is somehow a crime itself your whole argument falls apart." And if hate is a crime it still amounts to "thought crime".
Hate, motivated by race, religion, gender or sexual preference and expressed in a damaging way against the subject of one's hate, is a crime. At that point, its stops being a "thought crime" and becomes a punishable action.
Then why bother to exchange info......apparently, you have all the answers.
Your more prone to present your ideas as certainty and the other side as being lacking intelectually or morally then I am.
I believe strongly in certain issues and will say so accordingly, but I am not the one who said "I make these statements because they are right". With that statement, there is no room for disagreement......they are 100% declarative.
Furthermore, I at least make the attempt to try and figure out from where you all are coming. On several occasions over the past few months, I have asked questions trying to better understand the conservative mindset; to determine why you all take the positions you do. I can't think of one time where you or any others have done the same.
Its very clear we have very different lifestyles, views and precepts that create a gap between us. The only way I have learned to close thatn kind of gap is to try and understand the other side. Its why I watch FOX news even though I disagree with many of their opinions.
So, if you want to help bridge the gap that exists between our ideologies, then we can continue to post. However, if your whole approach is to tell me you're right no matter what, then fuck it.........posting with you is a waste of my time.
And one other thing, I know I am not always right but I will guarantee you neither are you.
Then what is my incentive?
Your incentive is your idea that it is so important to punish every single crime. If you can get enough people to support you, then you wouldn't even have to make up new laws to have this done. And doing it that way would actually have each crime get punished. "Hate crimes", add one new crime, apparently for hate. What if the person beats someone, rapes them and kills them. Are you going to come up with another whole new type of crime to punish the fact that three crimes have been committed or is somehow making hate a crime enough to cover any number of included offenses when laws against murder (or whatever else the most serious offense was) are not?
As I said above, hate, expressed as a physical act, is a category of crime IMO.
"If a man rapes a woman and he doesn't hate her (or her race or whatever) and he beats her to ensure compliance should that be a hate crime, in addition to rape?
Its likely his rape is a hate crime because humans usually hate the people they rape. Typically, rape is usually considered a crime of power and hate, and not sex.
What about muggings, they are often beatings then robbery, should they all be hate crimes??"
No......unless there is some other reason that makes it a hate crime.
Most hate crimes are fairly transparent but if a crime doesn't have transparency, then I don't think it should be labeled a hate crime.
Your justification for hate crimes laws was that they ensure that someone will be punsished for the multiple crimes they may commit, for example beating then murder. Well if that should apply in one case why not everywhere even when there is no hate?
I didn't say beating them which led to murder is two crimes. However, I would consider torturing them and then murdering as two separate crimes. I hope you can see the distinction.
They are usually punished for as many crimes as they have committed. The only difference seems to be the hate. Well if hate is a crime you are criminilizing thoughts and emotions rather then actions. That's a little too big brother for me.
You will have to explain further......big brother to me means watching people 24/7 and not letting them be free.
Yes, one can......simply personalize it or make it subjective.
You still don't feel the same thing. Even if it happened to you your feelins would not be exactly the same thing.
Close enough!
ted |
