|
On October 29 2011 02:10 Iyerbeth wrote:
Just worth mentioning I think that when people vote for police and charges involved that's not the same as saying "Prison term!". I voted for that option because of the severity of the case, but I don't think that the result of that should be prison.
Absolutely. This kid may get a weekend in Juvenile Hall of some sort, with a court hearing and likely mandatory counselling. Probably not even anything that will go on his permanent record etc. That takes a court to rule that a crime has taken place, a criminal suit to be brought etc. That will almost assuredly not happen here.
|
On October 29 2011 01:56 aderum wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2011 01:50 Blasterion wrote:On October 29 2011 01:34 aderum wrote:On October 29 2011 01:30 WhiteDog wrote:On October 29 2011 01:22 Iyerbeth wrote:On October 29 2011 01:20 WhiteDog wrote:On October 29 2011 01:18 Iyerbeth wrote:On October 29 2011 01:13 Carny wrote:
Wtf is up here. I only see gay threads on the board. Has TL become some sort of Gay Sanctuary?
Don't wanna sound homophobic but it's kinda disgusting to see these kind of threads everytime I visit TL... Imagine how the gay community feels waking up every day to the same news about homophobic bullying, abuse and on occasion murders. I don't think anyone wants to see these stories, but the problem isn't about raiding awareness of the issue, it's that the events occur in the first place. It's more like they are searching something to get "offended". There are a shitload of bad things happening right now in the world and every community could find enough materials to make a thousand post on TL a day. If you genuinely think that this topic is people looking for something to be offended by there is nothing I could say in conversation that would ever achieve anything. Suffice to say though, I find that attitude sickening. I'm sorry if I offended you, but sometime it's better to take some distance with the day-to-day events and try to think carefully about the world as a whole and not some tiny events that mean almost nothing if you put them back in the big picture. Sure, it's hard to get beaten, especially if the only reason for that is that you are "different", but you also got to try to get out of yourself and replace your own experience into the world : there are a lot of young kids that get beaten for a thousands of reasons. So let's not stop on the details (here the details being : he is gay) and try to confront the big problem which is the violence toward young kids with any kind of difference from the norm. So because kids get beaten up every day, we should not care? Doesnt that mean that we should just fight harder and give harder punishment for these things so that it stops? Your attitude against something ass disgusting as this is saddening  I believe that kids get beaten up every day is a problem and must solve it, and discourage the behavior but we shouldn't make it different case for gays, All bullies punished for bullying, status of the victim shouldn't come into play, the intention could be taken into account though, but Bullying straight kids is as bad as bullying gays and bullying everyone else. We should not make special cases about victim status. Basically, punish the crime for what it is, not for who it is done to Example Thief stole from gay, punished for thievery, not for punished for stealing from a gay Wow thats the most stupid example in this thread so far. The bully in question didnt beat up a kid that happend to be gay, he beat up a kid BECAUSE he was gay. Can you see the different and why we need to be harsh about crimes like that?
Dude You are discriminating all around. Most attacks happens for a reason, someone gets beaten up BECAUSE he is rich someone BECAUSE he is fat and someone BECAUSE he is hitting on bullis gf. People are all kind of things, they are rich,poor,smart,stupid,fat,skiny, or in middle of whatever. By stating that some of human properities are more important than other (because there is harsher punshiment for a crime based on them You are in fact doing that), You are creating barriers, dividing people, while in fact Your goal was quite the oposite.
If You want people to not discriminate, You should start with yourself, being fat or skinny is exactly same properity as being black of white, homo or heterosexual. If You are exercising harsher punishment for atacking some of human proporities You are in fact making a division, how You expect people to not divide people by race or religion if this kind of division is written in law?
|
On October 29 2011 02:08 drshdwpuppet wrote:
See my post right before this. Looks are not a protected characteristic.
Well, it seems I'm too dumb to understand the way some of you thinking, becouse I still dont see any reason for harsher or less harsh punishment. Law is a law, if this is a case in this particular state, than ok. If someone will try to differs the unjustified violence becouse of any criteria in my country, i will be against. I put it all into category "assault for no reason".
|
On October 29 2011 02:11 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2011 02:06 drshdwpuppet wrote:On October 29 2011 02:04 WhiteDog wrote:On October 29 2011 02:02 drshdwpuppet wrote:On October 29 2011 01:59 WhiteDog wrote:On October 29 2011 01:50 drshdwpuppet wrote:On October 29 2011 01:46 WhiteDog wrote:On October 29 2011 01:41 drshdwpuppet wrote:On October 29 2011 01:30 WhiteDog wrote:On October 29 2011 01:22 Iyerbeth wrote:
[quote]
If you genuinely think that this topic is people looking for something to be offended by there is nothing I could say in conversation that would ever achieve anything.
Suffice to say though, I find that attitude sickening. I'm sorry if I offended you, but sometime it's better to take some distance with the day-to-day events and try to think carefully about the world as a whole and not some tiny events that mean almost nothing if you put them back in the big picture. Sure, it's hard to get beaten, especially if the only reason for that is that you are "different", but you also got to try to get out of yourself and replace your own experience into the world : there are a lot of young kids that get beaten for a thousands of reasons. So let's not stop on the details (here the details being : he is gay) and try to confront the big problem which is the violence toward young kids with any kind of difference from the norm. Here are some bigger picture things for you to consider "Gay youth are two to four times more likely to be threatened with a deadly weapon at school and miss more days of school than their heterosexual peers. Further, they are two to seven times more likely to attempt suicide. These issues, the societal stigma around homosexuality and fear of bias-motivated attack, lead to gay men and women, especially teenagers, becoming more likely to abuse drugs such as marijuana and cocaine and alcohol, have unprotected sex with multiple sexual partners, find themselves in unwanted sexual situations, have body image and eating disorders, and be at higher risk for STDs and HIV/AIDS." ( "Gay Adolescents and Suicide: Understanding the Association.". Adolescence. 2005 .http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2248/is_159_40/ai_n15950408/) The point is that there are indeed lots of kids that get beaten up every day for thousands of reasons. It is just that there is a larger percentage of gay kids being beaten up because they are gay than heterosexual kids for other reasons. I am curious as to how you look at the world as a whole. Because while it is true that this particular event is fairly insignificant in the grand scheme, the way that I, and most logical, rational people I know, analyze the world and its problems is by looking at trends. Trends are important for discovering how and why things are the way they are and how we can fix them. I see a trend of gay bullying, assault, bias motivated crimes and hatred. I see a problem that can be fixed without begging for preferential treatment because the legal foundation is already there. You just want to consider the fact that they are gay, that's your choice. I could give you the same thing about arabic population in the US, being discriminated more than any other communities, but you would not care at all because the only thing that matter for you is the "gay" problem. The main problem is violence, it's not okay to hit a young kid, the reasons comes after. The question is "do I think he should be punished more harshly" I answered with "yes, because it is the law. Personally, I also think that because this". I am gay, I have been the victim of bullying, assault, rape etc. So yes, this is a hot topic issue for me because I am fairly active in spreading the word, helping other gay youth, being an advocate for a group that I belong to. I think the reason behind any crime is important in determining the course of action to correct and prevent. The Arabic population being assaulted etc because they are Arabic IS ALSO A BIAS MOTIVATED CRIME AND SHOULD ALSO BE DEALT WITH MORE HARSHLY THAN A NON BIAS MOTIVATED CRIME. This topic isn't about a kid being beaten up because he is arab. I have seen that happen to, and it should also be dealt with more harshly. All crime are BIAS MOTIVATED... What other reason is there to hit a young kid ? The fact that you are gay and suffered because of it is not relevant to the actual case. I know it's hard, I had my own suffering too, but it doesn't mean some crime should be more punished than others just because they are related to my own suffering in any way. We are using a legal definition. All crimes are not Bias motivated. A bias motivated crime in the united states is defined as a crime motivated by enmity or animus against a protected class. I'm just going to ignore the suffering bit, because you are right, it isnt really relevant. And on what criteria does you consider a certain class in need to be "protected" or not ? I will answer to my own question : the power that this very class has on the media and the public sphere. I consider young kids as a whole in need to be protected, not just gay kids. I use the criteria that a court would, THE LEGAL DEFINITION. Namely race, religion, ethnicity, nationality, gender, and disability with the addition of sexual orientation and gender identity in 2009 with the Matthew Shepard act. So no, you did not answer your own question, don't presume to be able to answer what my criteria are in anything thank you. Yes I did respond to my question, why did they decide to define as protected "race, religion, ethnicity, nationality, gender, disability with the addition of sexual orientation and gender identity" in the LEGAL DEFINITION ? Because, as I said, there were communities behind those laws. It doesn't care what the law says if it's dumb in my opinion. And you brilliantly evaded my last sentence. The fact is : hitting a kid, in any way, is a crime, and if you punish more when a gay kid is punished rather than any other kid, then the only thing you are saying is that the gay kid is more important to the community than the other kid, which is pretty pathetic.
nooooooooooo I am not saying he is more important to the community. I am saying that the legal definition that this crime would fall under if brought to a criminal court could possibly be that of hate crime (takes a lot to prove motivation btw, so it isnt even remotely likely) because of the legal definition of it. I have made no personal value judgements in that argument at all. I have made a legal argument for why he should be punished more harshly. Instead of using hyperbole and emotions, how about you make an argument using legal definitions, scientific articles, journal studies etc.
And the reason sexual orientation was added to the list was because of the case of Matthew Shepard. Matthew was entrapped, beaten, tortured, assaulted, kidnapped and tied to a fence and left to die because he was gay. At the time, it couldn't be tried as a bias motivated crime, only as a murder. Not because of media portrayal, not because of bias spin, not because of CNN. Because of a horrific and terrible crime against a human being on the grounds of an immutable property of his life.
|
On October 28 2011 07:36 masterbreti wrote:
Bad enough it happened. No bystanders tried to help the poor kid. Only going so far as to record it on their cellphone as it was preplanned.
I don't know how it works in other schools, but in my school, if you tried to protect the kid, you would get equal punishment too, which I find hilariously stupid (I'm referring to high school). But whatever, I feel like anything under university level is really dumbed down already, so nothing I say really changes. Big shame it happened.
|
On October 29 2011 02:13 hitthat wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2011 02:08 drshdwpuppet wrote:
See my post right before this. Looks are not a protected characteristic. Well, it seems I'm too dumb to understand the way some of you thinking, becouse I still dont see any reason for harsher or less harsh punishment. Law is a law, if this is a case in this particular state, than ok. If someone will try to differs the unjustified violence becouse of any criteria in my country, i will be against. I put it all into category "assault for no reason".
That is your opinion and prerogative. On a personal level, I support the law and a harsher punishment, but on a legal, moral and educated level, if it wasn't a legal hate crime, I wouldn't be for harsher punishment.
|
Russian Federation266 Posts
In my opinion the punishment for the crime should be the same regardless of victim being gay. Being somehow oppressed or part of sexual or national or any other minority shouldn't give you any additional rights that other people don't have.
Anyway beating someone is a crime even if it didn't cause any health damage.
|
On October 29 2011 02:17 drshdwpuppet wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2011 02:11 WhiteDog wrote:On October 29 2011 02:06 drshdwpuppet wrote:On October 29 2011 02:04 WhiteDog wrote:On October 29 2011 02:02 drshdwpuppet wrote:On October 29 2011 01:59 WhiteDog wrote:On October 29 2011 01:50 drshdwpuppet wrote:On October 29 2011 01:46 WhiteDog wrote:On October 29 2011 01:41 drshdwpuppet wrote:On October 29 2011 01:30 WhiteDog wrote:
[quote]
I'm sorry if I offended you, but sometime it's better to take some distance with the day-to-day events and try to think carefully about the world as a whole and not some tiny events that mean almost nothing if you put them back in the big picture.
Sure, it's hard to get beaten, especially if the only reason for that is that you are "different", but you also got to try to get out of yourself and replace your own experience into the world : there are a lot of young kids that get beaten for a thousands of reasons.
So let's not stop on the details (here the details being : he is gay) and try to confront the big problem which is the violence toward young kids with any kind of difference from the norm. Here are some bigger picture things for you to consider "Gay youth are two to four times more likely to be threatened with a deadly weapon at school and miss more days of school than their heterosexual peers. Further, they are two to seven times more likely to attempt suicide. These issues, the societal stigma around homosexuality and fear of bias-motivated attack, lead to gay men and women, especially teenagers, becoming more likely to abuse drugs such as marijuana and cocaine and alcohol, have unprotected sex with multiple sexual partners, find themselves in unwanted sexual situations, have body image and eating disorders, and be at higher risk for STDs and HIV/AIDS." ( "Gay Adolescents and Suicide: Understanding the Association.". Adolescence. 2005 .http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2248/is_159_40/ai_n15950408/) The point is that there are indeed lots of kids that get beaten up every day for thousands of reasons. It is just that there is a larger percentage of gay kids being beaten up because they are gay than heterosexual kids for other reasons. I am curious as to how you look at the world as a whole. Because while it is true that this particular event is fairly insignificant in the grand scheme, the way that I, and most logical, rational people I know, analyze the world and its problems is by looking at trends. Trends are important for discovering how and why things are the way they are and how we can fix them. I see a trend of gay bullying, assault, bias motivated crimes and hatred. I see a problem that can be fixed without begging for preferential treatment because the legal foundation is already there. You just want to consider the fact that they are gay, that's your choice. I could give you the same thing about arabic population in the US, being discriminated more than any other communities, but you would not care at all because the only thing that matter for you is the "gay" problem. The main problem is violence, it's not okay to hit a young kid, the reasons comes after. The question is "do I think he should be punished more harshly" I answered with "yes, because it is the law. Personally, I also think that because this". I am gay, I have been the victim of bullying, assault, rape etc. So yes, this is a hot topic issue for me because I am fairly active in spreading the word, helping other gay youth, being an advocate for a group that I belong to. I think the reason behind any crime is important in determining the course of action to correct and prevent. The Arabic population being assaulted etc because they are Arabic IS ALSO A BIAS MOTIVATED CRIME AND SHOULD ALSO BE DEALT WITH MORE HARSHLY THAN A NON BIAS MOTIVATED CRIME. This topic isn't about a kid being beaten up because he is arab. I have seen that happen to, and it should also be dealt with more harshly. All crime are BIAS MOTIVATED... What other reason is there to hit a young kid ? The fact that you are gay and suffered because of it is not relevant to the actual case. I know it's hard, I had my own suffering too, but it doesn't mean some crime should be more punished than others just because they are related to my own suffering in any way. We are using a legal definition. All crimes are not Bias motivated. A bias motivated crime in the united states is defined as a crime motivated by enmity or animus against a protected class. I'm just going to ignore the suffering bit, because you are right, it isnt really relevant. And on what criteria does you consider a certain class in need to be "protected" or not ? I will answer to my own question : the power that this very class has on the media and the public sphere. I consider young kids as a whole in need to be protected, not just gay kids. I use the criteria that a court would, THE LEGAL DEFINITION. Namely race, religion, ethnicity, nationality, gender, and disability with the addition of sexual orientation and gender identity in 2009 with the Matthew Shepard act. So no, you did not answer your own question, don't presume to be able to answer what my criteria are in anything thank you. Yes I did respond to my question, why did they decide to define as protected "race, religion, ethnicity, nationality, gender, disability with the addition of sexual orientation and gender identity" in the LEGAL DEFINITION ? Because, as I said, there were communities behind those laws. It doesn't care what the law says if it's dumb in my opinion. And you brilliantly evaded my last sentence. The fact is : hitting a kid, in any way, is a crime, and if you punish more when a gay kid is punished rather than any other kid, then the only thing you are saying is that the gay kid is more important to the community than the other kid, which is pretty pathetic. nooooooooooo I am not saying he is more important to the community. I am saying that the legal definition that this crime would fall under if brought to a criminal court could possibly be that of hate crime (takes a lot to prove motivation btw, so it isnt even remotely likely) because of the legal definition of it. I have made no personal value judgements in that argument at all. I have made a legal argument for why he should be punished more harshly. Instead of using hyperbole and emotions, how about you make an argument using legal definitions, scientific articles, journal studies etc. And the reason sexual orientation was added to the list was because of the case of Matthew Shepard. Matthew was entrapped, beaten, tortured, assaulted, kidnapped and tied to a fence and left to die because he was gay. At the time, it couldn't be tried as a bias motivated crime, only as a murder. Not because of media portrayal, not because of bias spin, not because of CNN. Because of a horrific and terrible crime against a human being on the grounds of an immutable property of his life.
My arguments are all based on logic.
You are the one who used emotion since the beginning, stating that you were gay, that you had suffered, and now saying that it is all legal. A "legal" argument mean nothing, in sociology the laws are the historic expression of social facts : they represent the society at a certain point in her history. The reason the sexual orientation was added to the list was because a certain number of people decided to defend the idea that the Matthew Shepard was more than a horrible crime.
If Matthew Shepard was not gay but suffered the same exact thing, do you think that his offender should have been punished less ? That's what you are saying since the beginning and I do not agree : it is wrong in every possible way.
|
wtf who voted no punishment?
its bad thats the person who got beat up is gay but i dont think the school should handle it differently then they do with pupils beating up a heterosexual kid since if they do handle it differently its discriminating in its own way
|
For laws to protect special groups of humans more than regular humans, it creates division in groups of humanity which completely goes against the intention of those special groups that demands"equality". Since you're judged as something more than a regular human.that is why you judge a crime against human being as a crime against a human being not judge a crime for committing a crime against a special group of humans that are more protected than other humans
|
On October 29 2011 02:26 Blasterion wrote:
For laws to protect special groups of humans more than regular humans, it creates division in groups of humanity which completely goes against the intention of those special groups that demands"equality". Since you're judged as something more than a regular human.that is why you judge a crime against human being as a crime against a human being not judge a crime for committing a crime against a special group of humans that are more protected than other humans
Yes exactly.
|
On October 28 2011 07:42 trainRiderJ wrote:
I hate to break it to you but the police force doesn't have the manpower to be involved in every school fight...
This
Also is beyond ignorance to say this should be punished with anything else then a few weeks suspension tbh, this kind of shit happens in school... they are kids damn it, unless he was seriously injured or beaten to death or something like that its just a normal "school fight". The fact that some ppl think that someone being gay is reason enough to be defended from bullies more then a geek/small in size/fat..etc kids is just horrible and 20th century imo, being gay is a reason enough for some kid to fight/insult another kid... is bad but look back at your school and think of at least 1 fat/nerdy... w.e kid that got picked on for that reason, its the same here.
Bullies gonna bully and its not worse in this case then in any other.
|
On October 29 2011 02:27 Aterons_toss wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2011 07:42 trainRiderJ wrote:
I hate to break it to you but the police force doesn't have the manpower to be involved in every school fight... This Also is beyond ignorance to say this should be punished with anything else then a few weeks suspension tbh, this kind of shit happens in school... they are kids damn it, unless he was seriously injured or beaten to death or something like that its just a normal "school fight". The fact that some ppl think that someone being gay is reason enough to be defended from bullies more then a geek/small in size/fat..etc kids is just horrible and 20th century imo, being gay is a reason enough for some kid to fight/insult another kid... is bad but look back at your school and think of at least 1 fat/nerdy... w.e kid that got picked on for that reason, its the same here. Bullies gonna bully and its not worse in this case then in any other.
Did you actually watch the video?
The assault was fucking PLANNED and it wasn't just like he was teasing him. He hit him as hard as he could in the face with his fists, repeatedly.
"Bullies gonna bully and its not worse in this case then in any other" is pretty lol worthy in this case.
|
On October 29 2011 02:25 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2011 02:17 drshdwpuppet wrote:On October 29 2011 02:11 WhiteDog wrote:On October 29 2011 02:06 drshdwpuppet wrote:On October 29 2011 02:04 WhiteDog wrote:On October 29 2011 02:02 drshdwpuppet wrote:On October 29 2011 01:59 WhiteDog wrote:On October 29 2011 01:50 drshdwpuppet wrote:On October 29 2011 01:46 WhiteDog wrote:On October 29 2011 01:41 drshdwpuppet wrote:
[quote]
Here are some bigger picture things for you to consider
"Gay youth are two to four times more likely to be threatened with a deadly weapon at school and miss more days of school than their heterosexual peers. Further, they are two to seven times more likely to attempt suicide. These issues, the societal stigma around homosexuality and fear of bias-motivated attack, lead to gay men and women, especially teenagers, becoming more likely to abuse drugs such as marijuana and cocaine and alcohol, have unprotected sex with multiple sexual partners, find themselves in unwanted sexual situations, have body image and eating disorders, and be at higher risk for STDs and HIV/AIDS." ( "Gay Adolescents and Suicide: Understanding the Association.". Adolescence. 2005 .http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2248/is_159_40/ai_n15950408/)
The point is that there are indeed lots of kids that get beaten up every day for thousands of reasons. It is just that there is a larger percentage of gay kids being beaten up because they are gay than heterosexual kids for other reasons.
I am curious as to how you look at the world as a whole. Because while it is true that this particular event is fairly insignificant in the grand scheme, the way that I, and most logical, rational people I know, analyze the world and its problems is by looking at trends. Trends are important for discovering how and why things are the way they are and how we can fix them. I see a trend of gay bullying, assault, bias motivated crimes and hatred. I see a problem that can be fixed without begging for preferential treatment because the legal foundation is already there. You just want to consider the fact that they are gay, that's your choice. I could give you the same thing about arabic population in the US, being discriminated more than any other communities, but you would not care at all because the only thing that matter for you is the "gay" problem. The main problem is violence, it's not okay to hit a young kid, the reasons comes after. The question is "do I think he should be punished more harshly" I answered with "yes, because it is the law. Personally, I also think that because this". I am gay, I have been the victim of bullying, assault, rape etc. So yes, this is a hot topic issue for me because I am fairly active in spreading the word, helping other gay youth, being an advocate for a group that I belong to. I think the reason behind any crime is important in determining the course of action to correct and prevent. The Arabic population being assaulted etc because they are Arabic IS ALSO A BIAS MOTIVATED CRIME AND SHOULD ALSO BE DEALT WITH MORE HARSHLY THAN A NON BIAS MOTIVATED CRIME. This topic isn't about a kid being beaten up because he is arab. I have seen that happen to, and it should also be dealt with more harshly. All crime are BIAS MOTIVATED... What other reason is there to hit a young kid ? The fact that you are gay and suffered because of it is not relevant to the actual case. I know it's hard, I had my own suffering too, but it doesn't mean some crime should be more punished than others just because they are related to my own suffering in any way. We are using a legal definition. All crimes are not Bias motivated. A bias motivated crime in the united states is defined as a crime motivated by enmity or animus against a protected class. I'm just going to ignore the suffering bit, because you are right, it isnt really relevant. And on what criteria does you consider a certain class in need to be "protected" or not ? I will answer to my own question : the power that this very class has on the media and the public sphere. I consider young kids as a whole in need to be protected, not just gay kids. I use the criteria that a court would, THE LEGAL DEFINITION. Namely race, religion, ethnicity, nationality, gender, and disability with the addition of sexual orientation and gender identity in 2009 with the Matthew Shepard act. So no, you did not answer your own question, don't presume to be able to answer what my criteria are in anything thank you. Yes I did respond to my question, why did they decide to define as protected "race, religion, ethnicity, nationality, gender, disability with the addition of sexual orientation and gender identity" in the LEGAL DEFINITION ? Because, as I said, there were communities behind those laws. It doesn't care what the law says if it's dumb in my opinion. And you brilliantly evaded my last sentence. The fact is : hitting a kid, in any way, is a crime, and if you punish more when a gay kid is punished rather than any other kid, then the only thing you are saying is that the gay kid is more important to the community than the other kid, which is pretty pathetic. nooooooooooo I am not saying he is more important to the community. I am saying that the legal definition that this crime would fall under if brought to a criminal court could possibly be that of hate crime (takes a lot to prove motivation btw, so it isnt even remotely likely) because of the legal definition of it. I have made no personal value judgements in that argument at all. I have made a legal argument for why he should be punished more harshly. Instead of using hyperbole and emotions, how about you make an argument using legal definitions, scientific articles, journal studies etc. And the reason sexual orientation was added to the list was because of the case of Matthew Shepard. Matthew was entrapped, beaten, tortured, assaulted, kidnapped and tied to a fence and left to die because he was gay. At the time, it couldn't be tried as a bias motivated crime, only as a murder. Not because of media portrayal, not because of bias spin, not because of CNN. Because of a horrific and terrible crime against a human being on the grounds of an immutable property of his life. My arguments are all based on logic. You are the one who used emotion since the beginning, stating that you were gay, that you had suffered, and now saying that it is all legal. A "legal" argument mean nothing, in sociology the laws are the historic expression of social facts : they represent the society at a certain point in her history. The reason the sexual orientation was added to the list was because a certain number of people decided to defend the idea that the Matthew Shepard was more than a horrible crime. If Matthew Shepard was not gay but suffered the same exact thing, do you think that his offender should have been punished less ? That's what you are saying since the beginning and I do not agree : it is wrong in every possible way.
Yes, I used emotional arguments by saying I had suffered. I retract that statement because it has no relevance to this discussion. Everything else has been a legal argument.
And this isn't even kind of a sociology thought experiment. It is a legal question and one that has a definitive answer based on the foundations of law and order in the United States as defined by our legal code and Supreme Court rulings. The reason sexual orientation was added to the list of protected characteristics is because, through senate and house action, which by extension is through action of voting by proxy of the American people, we decided to add it. It was democratic. Theoretically, the majority of the American people wanted it to be, so it was. (I realize that this is not always how it works in America, but from a legal standpoint, that is exactly how it works).
The reason the crime against Matthew Shepard was particularly heinous is the proven motivation for the actions. Not the action itself, if that happened to another person, it would be a grievous crime for sure. Legally, we make a distinction between crimes done for certain reasons. I am not making a social argument, nor am I prepared to defend my opinion on the addition of sexual orientation to the list for you.
I do not think that the crime should be punished more because he is gay. Let me repeat.
I do not think that the crime should be punished more because he is gay.
I think the crime should be punished more because the demonstrable bias that motivated the assault is against federal laws protecting us from bias motivated crimes in Title 18 U.S.C. § 245.
|
I'm horrified people are saying that this sort of activity is just school activity. Any school should impose the harshest restrictions on this activity. All schools should have tough anti-bullying policies. In my school a kid headbutted me when I was 15, I was given the option to have him expelled on the spot by the headmaster...that's how every school should work. For an event that is recorded on a phone ie no chance of evidential uncertainty?? This is no different from any battery case, kid who was attacked should be able to issue civil proceedings for damages and the offender should be hauled up in a criminal court and given something like 300 hours community service. Also he should be expelled, which pretty much goes without saying.
By the way, it has nothing to do with being gay, that's incidental, any violence like this should be treated in that way.
|
On October 29 2011 02:34 drshdwpuppet wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2011 02:25 WhiteDog wrote:On October 29 2011 02:17 drshdwpuppet wrote:On October 29 2011 02:11 WhiteDog wrote:On October 29 2011 02:06 drshdwpuppet wrote:On October 29 2011 02:04 WhiteDog wrote:On October 29 2011 02:02 drshdwpuppet wrote:On October 29 2011 01:59 WhiteDog wrote:On October 29 2011 01:50 drshdwpuppet wrote:On October 29 2011 01:46 WhiteDog wrote:
[quote]
You just want to consider the fact that they are gay, that's your choice. I could give you the same thing about arabic population in the US, being discriminated more than any other communities, but you would not care at all because the only thing that matter for you is the "gay" problem.
The main problem is violence, it's not okay to hit a young kid, the reasons comes after.
The question is "do I think he should be punished more harshly" I answered with "yes, because it is the law. Personally, I also think that because this". I am gay, I have been the victim of bullying, assault, rape etc. So yes, this is a hot topic issue for me because I am fairly active in spreading the word, helping other gay youth, being an advocate for a group that I belong to. I think the reason behind any crime is important in determining the course of action to correct and prevent. The Arabic population being assaulted etc because they are Arabic IS ALSO A BIAS MOTIVATED CRIME AND SHOULD ALSO BE DEALT WITH MORE HARSHLY THAN A NON BIAS MOTIVATED CRIME. This topic isn't about a kid being beaten up because he is arab. I have seen that happen to, and it should also be dealt with more harshly. All crime are BIAS MOTIVATED... What other reason is there to hit a young kid ? The fact that you are gay and suffered because of it is not relevant to the actual case. I know it's hard, I had my own suffering too, but it doesn't mean some crime should be more punished than others just because they are related to my own suffering in any way. We are using a legal definition. All crimes are not Bias motivated. A bias motivated crime in the united states is defined as a crime motivated by enmity or animus against a protected class. I'm just going to ignore the suffering bit, because you are right, it isnt really relevant. And on what criteria does you consider a certain class in need to be "protected" or not ? I will answer to my own question : the power that this very class has on the media and the public sphere. I consider young kids as a whole in need to be protected, not just gay kids. I use the criteria that a court would, THE LEGAL DEFINITION. Namely race, religion, ethnicity, nationality, gender, and disability with the addition of sexual orientation and gender identity in 2009 with the Matthew Shepard act. So no, you did not answer your own question, don't presume to be able to answer what my criteria are in anything thank you. Yes I did respond to my question, why did they decide to define as protected "race, religion, ethnicity, nationality, gender, disability with the addition of sexual orientation and gender identity" in the LEGAL DEFINITION ? Because, as I said, there were communities behind those laws. It doesn't care what the law says if it's dumb in my opinion. And you brilliantly evaded my last sentence. The fact is : hitting a kid, in any way, is a crime, and if you punish more when a gay kid is punished rather than any other kid, then the only thing you are saying is that the gay kid is more important to the community than the other kid, which is pretty pathetic. nooooooooooo I am not saying he is more important to the community. I am saying that the legal definition that this crime would fall under if brought to a criminal court could possibly be that of hate crime (takes a lot to prove motivation btw, so it isnt even remotely likely) because of the legal definition of it. I have made no personal value judgements in that argument at all. I have made a legal argument for why he should be punished more harshly. Instead of using hyperbole and emotions, how about you make an argument using legal definitions, scientific articles, journal studies etc. And the reason sexual orientation was added to the list was because of the case of Matthew Shepard. Matthew was entrapped, beaten, tortured, assaulted, kidnapped and tied to a fence and left to die because he was gay. At the time, it couldn't be tried as a bias motivated crime, only as a murder. Not because of media portrayal, not because of bias spin, not because of CNN. Because of a horrific and terrible crime against a human being on the grounds of an immutable property of his life. My arguments are all based on logic. You are the one who used emotion since the beginning, stating that you were gay, that you had suffered, and now saying that it is all legal. A "legal" argument mean nothing, in sociology the laws are the historic expression of social facts : they represent the society at a certain point in her history. The reason the sexual orientation was added to the list was because a certain number of people decided to defend the idea that the Matthew Shepard was more than a horrible crime. If Matthew Shepard was not gay but suffered the same exact thing, do you think that his offender should have been punished less ? That's what you are saying since the beginning and I do not agree : it is wrong in every possible way. Yes, I used emotional arguments by saying I had suffered. I retract that statement because it has no relevance to this discussion. Everything else has been a legal argument. And this isn't even kind of a sociology thought experiment. It is a legal question and one that has a definitive answer based on the foundations of law and order in the United States as defined by our legal code and Supreme Court rulings. The reason sexual orientation was added to the list of protected characteristics is because, through senate and house action, which by extension is through action of voting by proxy of the American people, we decided to add it. It was democratic. Theoretically, the majority of the American people wanted it to be, so it was. (I realize that this is not always how it works in America, but from a legal standpoint, that is exactly how it works). The reason the crime against Matthew Shepard was particularly heinous is the proven motivation for the actions. Not the action itself, if that happened to another person, it would be a grievous crime for sure. Legally, we make a distinction between crimes done for certain reasons. I am not making a social argument, nor am I prepared to defend my opinion on the addition of sexual orientation to the list for you. I do not think that the crime should be punished more because he is gay. Let me repeat. I do not think that the crime should be punished more because he is gay.I think the crime should be punished more because the demonstrable bias that motivated the assault is against federal laws protecting us from bias motivated crimes in Title 18 U.S.C. § 245.
So, if the law says it, it's the right thing to do? You realize that a lot of states don't grant gay marriage certificates because the law says it's only between a man and a woman, yes? Laws can be wrong, and it's our duty to evolve them to fit with our current model of an ideal society. Right now, laws which discriminate, or give preferential treatment, are not helping the solve the problem of discrimination. For example, hiring quotas, which force companies to go around hiring people from different ethnic backgrounds simply to avoid the conversation of racial discrimination and potential lawsuits, rather than hiring the individuals on their own merits, isn't helping.
Nobody's saying the kid doesn't deserve to be punished, and I believe most people here are advocating a MUCH harsher punishment than a 3-day suspension. But, the moment you believe it should be harsher 'because the victim was gay', not 'because he attacked another human-being', you become a part of the problem.
|
Obv. he should get more for beating a kid up but it shouldn't receive special punishment.
|
On October 29 2011 02:34 drshdwpuppet wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2011 02:25 WhiteDog wrote:On October 29 2011 02:17 drshdwpuppet wrote:On October 29 2011 02:11 WhiteDog wrote:On October 29 2011 02:06 drshdwpuppet wrote:On October 29 2011 02:04 WhiteDog wrote:On October 29 2011 02:02 drshdwpuppet wrote:On October 29 2011 01:59 WhiteDog wrote:On October 29 2011 01:50 drshdwpuppet wrote:On October 29 2011 01:46 WhiteDog wrote:
[quote]
You just want to consider the fact that they are gay, that's your choice. I could give you the same thing about arabic population in the US, being discriminated more than any other communities, but you would not care at all because the only thing that matter for you is the "gay" problem.
The main problem is violence, it's not okay to hit a young kid, the reasons comes after.
The question is "do I think he should be punished more harshly" I answered with "yes, because it is the law. Personally, I also think that because this". I am gay, I have been the victim of bullying, assault, rape etc. So yes, this is a hot topic issue for me because I am fairly active in spreading the word, helping other gay youth, being an advocate for a group that I belong to. I think the reason behind any crime is important in determining the course of action to correct and prevent. The Arabic population being assaulted etc because they are Arabic IS ALSO A BIAS MOTIVATED CRIME AND SHOULD ALSO BE DEALT WITH MORE HARSHLY THAN A NON BIAS MOTIVATED CRIME. This topic isn't about a kid being beaten up because he is arab. I have seen that happen to, and it should also be dealt with more harshly. All crime are BIAS MOTIVATED... What other reason is there to hit a young kid ? The fact that you are gay and suffered because of it is not relevant to the actual case. I know it's hard, I had my own suffering too, but it doesn't mean some crime should be more punished than others just because they are related to my own suffering in any way. We are using a legal definition. All crimes are not Bias motivated. A bias motivated crime in the united states is defined as a crime motivated by enmity or animus against a protected class. I'm just going to ignore the suffering bit, because you are right, it isnt really relevant. And on what criteria does you consider a certain class in need to be "protected" or not ? I will answer to my own question : the power that this very class has on the media and the public sphere. I consider young kids as a whole in need to be protected, not just gay kids. I use the criteria that a court would, THE LEGAL DEFINITION. Namely race, religion, ethnicity, nationality, gender, and disability with the addition of sexual orientation and gender identity in 2009 with the Matthew Shepard act. So no, you did not answer your own question, don't presume to be able to answer what my criteria are in anything thank you. Yes I did respond to my question, why did they decide to define as protected "race, religion, ethnicity, nationality, gender, disability with the addition of sexual orientation and gender identity" in the LEGAL DEFINITION ? Because, as I said, there were communities behind those laws. It doesn't care what the law says if it's dumb in my opinion. And you brilliantly evaded my last sentence. The fact is : hitting a kid, in any way, is a crime, and if you punish more when a gay kid is punished rather than any other kid, then the only thing you are saying is that the gay kid is more important to the community than the other kid, which is pretty pathetic. nooooooooooo I am not saying he is more important to the community. I am saying that the legal definition that this crime would fall under if brought to a criminal court could possibly be that of hate crime (takes a lot to prove motivation btw, so it isnt even remotely likely) because of the legal definition of it. I have made no personal value judgements in that argument at all. I have made a legal argument for why he should be punished more harshly. Instead of using hyperbole and emotions, how about you make an argument using legal definitions, scientific articles, journal studies etc. And the reason sexual orientation was added to the list was because of the case of Matthew Shepard. Matthew was entrapped, beaten, tortured, assaulted, kidnapped and tied to a fence and left to die because he was gay. At the time, it couldn't be tried as a bias motivated crime, only as a murder. Not because of media portrayal, not because of bias spin, not because of CNN. Because of a horrific and terrible crime against a human being on the grounds of an immutable property of his life. My arguments are all based on logic. You are the one who used emotion since the beginning, stating that you were gay, that you had suffered, and now saying that it is all legal. A "legal" argument mean nothing, in sociology the laws are the historic expression of social facts : they represent the society at a certain point in her history. The reason the sexual orientation was added to the list was because a certain number of people decided to defend the idea that the Matthew Shepard was more than a horrible crime. If Matthew Shepard was not gay but suffered the same exact thing, do you think that his offender should have been punished less ? That's what you are saying since the beginning and I do not agree : it is wrong in every possible way. Yes, I used emotional arguments by saying I had suffered. I retract that statement because it has no relevance to this discussion. Everything else has been a legal argument. And this isn't even kind of a sociology thought experiment. It is a legal question and one that has a definitive answer based on the foundations of law and order in the United States as defined by our legal code and Supreme Court rulings. The reason sexual orientation was added to the list of protected characteristics is because, through senate and house action, which by extension is through action of voting by proxy of the American people, we decided to add it. It was democratic. Theoretically, the majority of the American people wanted it to be, so it was. (I realize that this is not always how it works in America, but from a legal standpoint, that is exactly how it works). The reason the crime against Matthew Shepard was particularly heinous is the proven motivation for the actions. Not the action itself, if that happened to another person, it would be a grievous crime for sure. Legally, we make a distinction between crimes done for certain reasons. I am not making a social argument, nor am I prepared to defend my opinion on the addition of sexual orientation to the list for you. I do not think that the crime should be punished more because he is gay. Let me repeat. I do not think that the crime should be punished more because he is gay.I think the crime should be punished more because the demonstrable bias that motivated the assault is against federal laws protecting us from bias motivated crimes in Title 18 U.S.C. § 245.
First, you don't answer to my question which is : do you think that if Matthew Shepard would have faced the exact same torture but with no "demonstrable bias" then the assault should not be punished as heavily ?
Second, don't try to argue that the majority of the American people wanted that, because it's silly. I will not even try to make you consider the fact that there are 40% of non voters in america, or that making a law to respond to a specific case in the media is just giving an emotional response to a certain event. Also what the "majority" want doesn't mean it's instantly a good thing.
Theoretically, I can build a space shuttle.
I think we will never agree : I just think it's a bad idea to punish more a certain crime because it is a "bias motivated crime". Like Blasterion said, "it creates division in groups of humanity" which is a bad thing in every possible way.
You think the opposite.
There is nothing else to add.
|
|
|
why is the fact hes gay such a big fucking deal you homophobic wankers
seriously if you wernt homophobic you wouldnt care if he was gay or not.
seriously ... how is the fact hes gay making this any worse?
If you say hate crime i will cry, yes its a HATE crime, the guy hates, sexuality is just a footnote.
As for punishing for bias ... id punish you for being such a retard. You think hes hitting him because hes gay or because he has serious issues which have manifested through him deciding that he doesnt like an arbitrary group to channel his rage? People are really short cited imo. Everything has a cause, you can keep patching the symptons but you are just kidding yourself. There is not point punishing haters if you are not goign to address what makes them haters ... and solving that will require everyone to take blame and lose freedom which is not what people want to do. So the blame stops at the hater.
Moreover if he does hate gays, and you think we shuold tolerate gays because its their decision then by the same logic you should tolerate him. Yes you can go into harm arguments ... id just point out that actually if everyone was gay there would be nobody left after 1 generation wheras haters would manage to survive. Haters are useful ... you send them into battle.
How is hating the haters going to help? So get over punishment ./ vindication / any other bullshit that involves getting own back / equaling the score. I don't care if its socially acceptable to hate 'criminals' adn to alienate them. That makes you just as bad as the hater ... except at least hes fucking honest. I can deal with that.
The other point is ... both of em are kids. Kids are sociopaths that have NO idea of the reprocussions of their actions. Hell i think most adults have no idea - but at least they know that the reprocusions will be far greater than they imagine and so exercise caution. But there are limits. If you expel a kid for this you RUIN his life when he could be having a bad year because his parents are splitting up / hib brother is acrack head / his dad killed his dog by kicking it and so now uses him. Hes fucked ... the kid he beat up probably learnt an important lesson in life. Enjoy what youve got while youve got it. The world is unfair and brutal and will just roll over you. If you think otherwise you are deluded and living in a happy hippy fantasy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
