Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tejek who wrote (170602)	6/5/2003 1:20:23 AM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1580034

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. "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". 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. 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? "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? What about muggings, they are often beatings then robbery, should they all be hate crimes??" 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? 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. 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. Tim