THIS... is simply too ironic... can't stop laughing.

[Rankelson]

If by "we", you mean "humans", I agree. If by "we", you mean "white males"... you sicken me. Unless you were kidding, but my guess is, you weren't.

It was a "Tongue in Cheek" statement LP
But with equal rights,it seems minorities are more equal than The majority
And in times of hardship this can cause resentment

 

[LPanon]

Sorry, Rankelson. I edited my post. You need to add winking smilies when you do that. Got my blood all boiling!

 

[Rankelson]

Sorry, Rankelson. I edited my post. You need to add winking smilies when you do that. Got my blood all boiling!

I keep forgetting how literal the written word can be
I will start putting smileys in when being jocular

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Laws protecting equality are qualitatively different from hate crimes law.

As detestable as bigotry is, laws imposing harsher sentences for crimes driven by bigotry are silly. They are, in essence, the state meting out harsher punishment for thoughts.

 

[LPanon]

...They are, in essence, the state meting out harsher punishment for thoughts.

They do that all the time, in ways you probably agree with.

Premeditated murder is punshished differently than DWI manslaughter, and differently still, than manslaughter due to other negligence.

In each acse, a person is dead due to the actions of others. The charged crime and sentence will vary with what the authoities believe the commiter was THINKING, prior to the death of the other.

With very little work, you can come up with dozens of examples of people being punished differntly based on thought (intent).

Again, I disagree with the wording of "hate crime" laws, and the way they are impossible to enforce in any sort of fashion that allows for equity under the law.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

They do that all the time, in ways you probably agree with.

Premeditated murder is punshished differently than DWI manslaughter, and differently still, than manslaughter due to other negligence.

In each acse, a person is dead due to the actions of others. The charged crime and sentence will vary with what the authoities believe the commiter was THINKING, prior to the death of the other.

Yes, but in that case, the thought is itself planning out the illegal act. As such it can be construed as part of the act.

There's a difference in balefulness between planning a murder and hating a certain group. The first is necessarily a part of the crime. The second doesn't lead to the crime in the vast majority of cases.

With very little work, you can come up with dozens of examples of people being punished differntly based on thought (intent).

Unlike the distinction drawn between first-degree and second-degree murder based on intent, which separates the criminal longer from society based on their willful violation of societal norms, laws like this punish a person for haphazardly getting into a fight with a member of a group against which he's bigoted without showing that he intended to do so specifically in the charged crime. In other words, they're not obligated to show a direct link between the bigotry and its putative victim.

Again, I disagree with the wording of "hate crime" laws, and the way they are impossible to enforce in any sort of fashion that allows for equity under the law.

This gets to the nub of the problem. What these laws are is a way for politicians to grandstand as being "tough on crime" while adding yet another law which really does very little to change anything, aside from stoke a victim complex and sense of self-righteousness in the bigots it seeks to penalize. It punishes the bigot for being stupid without having the requirement of showing that his stupidity was a vital component of the crime.

 

[Publius pro tem]

Got my blood all boiling!

Which is the fundamental problem, no?

 

[Publius pro tem]

They are, in essence, the state meting out harsher punishment for thoughts.

Show me the "Love" crimes - rape, incest, prostitution...?

 

[Publius pro tem]

They do that all the time, in ways you probably agree with.

Thump might, but I damned sure don't.

With very little work, you can come up with dozens of examples of people being punished differntly based on thought (intent).

Yep, and it's a two-fer-one thing.
I can use the very same examples to illustrate where we have fxcked our Founding Fathers in the ass.

All for the sake of "progress" and "social justice"...
Giving so-called rights (that never existed) to people who make for great TV news stories.

Again, I disagree with the wording of "hate crime" laws, and the way they are impossible to enforce in any
sort of fashion that allows for equity under the law.

I disagree with the notion that my white, hetero, Christian children are somehow worth less.

 

[geochem1st]

Yes, but in that case, the thought is itself planning out the illegal act. As such it can be construed as part of the act.

There's a difference in balefulness between planning a murder and hating a certain group. The first is necessarily a part of the crime. The second doesn't lead to the crime in the vast majority of cases.



....

(forgive me Caleb and others)

If I hate cops, then plan an attack that kills cops... I will be prosecuted differently. The same legislation is being planned for 'legislators' since the Arizona shootings.

 

[Publius pro tem]

If I hate cops, then plan an attack that kills cops... I will be prosecuted differently.
The same legislation is being planned for 'legislators' since the Arizona shootings.

Here's one voice in Arizona telling you that the legislator thing is bullsh!t - I'll fight it tooth & nail.

As for the cop-killer thing?
There will NEVER be a shortage of prosecutorial options with existing laws on the books.

.​

 

[Thundergod]

If we had more of those types of people, we wouldn't have had laws that:
- Enforced segragation
- Didn't allow women to vote
- Prevent gay people from marrying
- Keep disabled people from entering a building


A lot of the laws you are referring to are put in place to try to undo the existing "special custom made laws" that deny any chance for equal treatment under the law. All of the laws that enforced or allowed for unequal treatment were passed by "honest caucasoids who looks like an ordinary joe").

Nobody is "asking for equality". We already have that. People are asking for "equal treatment under the law".

Because of that, I also oppose defining different punishments based on whether the crime was committed as a "hate crime".

No, they don't (obviously).

If by "we", you mean "humans", I agree. If by "we", you mean "white males"... you sicken me. Unless you were kidding.. EDITED... This was a joke from him. See below. I apologize for jumping on you, Rankelson.

There shouldn't be special laws. There should be laws for humans and that's it. Broke them? Get punished according to what they say regardless of your color, shape, taste in partners, religion, genre.

 

[Thundergod]

Sadly the race and sexual orientation cards ate used by law breaking imbeciles to make it so they can't be punished. I see it everyday. A guy gets told not to shit in the park and he complains that they are telling him just because he is black, poor, Indian, homosexual, or stupid. They KNOW they are doing wrong an they use the race/sex card to get the law off 'em.

 

[SKATTERBRANE]

Show me the "Love" crimes - rape, incest, prostitution...?

Now THAT was funny!