|
you punish hate crimes more than similar crimes, not for the act, but for the atmosphere of prejudice and divisiveness hate brings in society.
the point is not to allow that sort of intolerance to breed
|
On October 29 2011 03:58 hitthat wrote:
Oh, beating someone who looked funny is OKAY...yeah, now you silenced us for good XD
Besides being asshole and retarded worldview is not a crime. You can believe that "polacks", "frogeaters", "japs" or "krauts" are stupid, ugly, bad-smelling...all you want, as long as its not "turn into actions". So he commits 1 crime - unprovoked violence.
Exactly.
As long as it doesn't turn into actions.
The entire western criminal system looks at motivation for criminal actions for giving you either a lesser or a higher sentence.
That's the whole point.
If you disagree with that, well then, you should campaign for a change - because that's how we have decided we like our society.
|
On October 29 2011 03:57 aebriol wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2011 03:55 Blasterion wrote:On October 29 2011 03:50 aebriol wrote:On October 29 2011 03:41 TheRealArtemis wrote:
I dont see whats disturbing and sickening by this episode. Its called school? People bully others that "stick" out. The smart, the ugly, the fat or the kid thats gay. Its called growing up. I dont see why this gets so much attention, just because he's gay? Switch out 'gay' with black hispanic female asian whatever, and it would get the same coverage. It's moronic to say 'just because he is gay' ... no actually, it's because when you target someone because of their race, sex, sexual orientation, religion, handicaps, it's hate crime and worse than if you target someone 'because he looked at me funny'. Why? Because discrimination is NOT okay, and it should be fought against. In essence, you are committing two crimes at once - being an asshole and beating someone up, and discriminating because you have a shitty worldview. If the kid had downs syndrome, would it be okay? If it was because it was the only female in a class of males? If it was the only muslim? If it was the only atheist? Only christian? Only black? Only hispanic asian whatever minority you want? Or is it just okay because he is gay and you don't give a shit about them? Rather it is fundementally incorrect for humans to target other members of humanity to harm them with ill intent. And should be punishable however These members of humanity with special traits should not be exemptions from this, and should not be entitled to extra protection that is unavailable to other members of humanity It is not extra protection. It is extra punishment for the offender. Because of his motivation. Kind of like if you beat someone up because he came up to you and started calling you a ton of shit and you beat him up, you don't get the same punishment as if you are the one going up to someone and beating them up 'because you felt like doing it'. Get it?
It is as simple as he was motivated to assault another human because of ill intent, the victim should not be catagorized with a trait such as gender,race, sexual orientation, he was assaulted as a human being, and the offender will be punished for assaulting a human being with ill intentions
|
On October 29 2011 03:59 Blasterion wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2011 03:57 Newbistic wrote:On October 29 2011 03:50 Blasterion wrote:On October 29 2011 03:45 Hertzy wrote:On October 29 2011 03:18 Blasterion wrote:On October 29 2011 03:15 Chargelot wrote:On October 29 2011 03:08 Blasterion wrote:On October 29 2011 03:05 Chargelot wrote:On October 29 2011 02:58 Aterons_toss wrote:On October 29 2011 02:31 TS-Rupbar wrote:
[quote]
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. It is impressive that you can judge the force of someone hits by watching a phone camera video... It wasn't a planed assault it was most likely the bully and his friends saying : "guys, when X enters the room il hit him and you film.. lololol" which is not something unheard of, the media calls it a "planed assault against a gay" cuz that brings in the viewers... much like the 8-12 years old kids fighting in an MMA style and mostly learning how to fight in the MMA style in that fighting club that was called by BBC " Kids as young as 5 cage fighting". Assault and battery. Doing it because he's gay makes it a felony. Doesn't matter how hard the hits were. Doesn't matter how much sensationalism there is in this, you can see the fucking video. The police not only have the man power, but they have all of the 11 minutes this case would take to solve. Throw the kid in jail for a couple years and show him what the lifers think of gay sex. p.s. they think it's awesome. Again, example of punishing someone due to victim status, punish the crime for what the crime is, not who the crime was done to It's called a hate crime. Hate crime laws in the United States protect against hate crimes (also known as bias crimes) motivated by enmity or animus against a protected class. Although state laws vary, current statutes permit federal prosecution of hate crimes committed on the basis of a person's protected characteristics of race, religion, ethnicity, nationality, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, and disability. You're welcome to inspect the US Code, as well as the 50 state codes, to see the exact penalties and circumstances. On a logical level though, how does harming a human with ill intent, be a lesser crime than the harm a human of "special status" with ill intent? or are you otherwise intending to say that these special groups are fundementally different from other "normal" humans and should be judged as such? One way to look at it is that if you can't help punching people for not being exactly like you, you'll need more rehabilitation than the next violent person if you are to function in a society consisting of people not exactly like you. Hate crime laws exist to implement this in an environment where people like their laws literal and precisely defined. But does that go to in inferering that these special humans are entitled to more protection, or rather are regular humans entitled to less protection than these humans with, special traits. What the fuck did you even type. Humans with special traits? We're trying to be a civilized society here. Of course we protect the weak from the strong. We always do that. Do we tolerate people hitting women because they are physically weaker? No, we don't. Minimizing violence in society is always about protecting the weak from the strong. you would no tolerate people hitting other people at all, why would the traits of the victims even come into play?
Hitting someone because of one of the characteristics means that you will, most likely, hit someone else who shares the same characteristic. You become a threat to the entire populace of people with that characteristic.
You're not beating the crap out of John.
You're beating the crap out of a gay guy.
Steve, Tim, Bob, and Joe could be next, and since your ONLY or your BIGGEST motivation was that you attacked John because he was gay, there is absolutely no reason to believe that you will not repeat this offense.
|
On October 29 2011 04:01 Blasterion wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2011 03:57 aebriol wrote:On October 29 2011 03:55 Blasterion wrote:On October 29 2011 03:50 aebriol wrote:On October 29 2011 03:41 TheRealArtemis wrote:
I dont see whats disturbing and sickening by this episode. Its called school? People bully others that "stick" out. The smart, the ugly, the fat or the kid thats gay. Its called growing up. I dont see why this gets so much attention, just because he's gay? Switch out 'gay' with black hispanic female asian whatever, and it would get the same coverage. It's moronic to say 'just because he is gay' ... no actually, it's because when you target someone because of their race, sex, sexual orientation, religion, handicaps, it's hate crime and worse than if you target someone 'because he looked at me funny'. Why? Because discrimination is NOT okay, and it should be fought against. In essence, you are committing two crimes at once - being an asshole and beating someone up, and discriminating because you have a shitty worldview. If the kid had downs syndrome, would it be okay? If it was because it was the only female in a class of males? If it was the only muslim? If it was the only atheist? Only christian? Only black? Only hispanic asian whatever minority you want? Or is it just okay because he is gay and you don't give a shit about them? Rather it is fundementally incorrect for humans to target other members of humanity to harm them with ill intent. And should be punishable however These members of humanity with special traits should not be exemptions from this, and should not be entitled to extra protection that is unavailable to other members of humanity It is not extra protection. It is extra punishment for the offender. Because of his motivation. Kind of like if you beat someone up because he came up to you and started calling you a ton of shit and you beat him up, you don't get the same punishment as if you are the one going up to someone and beating them up 'because you felt like doing it'. Get it? It is as simple as he was motivated to assault another human because of ill intent, the victim should not be catagorized with a trait such as gender,race, sexual orientation, he was assaulted as a human being, and the offender will be punished for assaulting a human being with ill intentions
Motivation matter. It's the simple fact of western society. Intent and motivation matter when it comes to your punishment. It's that way in the court system, and I see no reason why it shouldn't be that way in school as well.
If you want to discuss universal or relative moralism I am always up to it, but this is a simple fact: motivation and intent matter in western society.
|
On October 29 2011 03:57 aebriol wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2011 03:55 WhiteDog wrote:On October 29 2011 03:23 Velocirapture wrote:
People are fixating on victim status when that is only half the picture. If a man assaults somebody it is assault. If a man assaults a gay man it is assault. If a man assaults a gay man BECAUSE he is gay then it is a hate crime. Motivation has ALWAYS been a consideration in criminal cases and this is no different. This is why we differentiate between first degree murder, second degree murder, voluntary manslaughter and involuntary manslaughter. We as a society believe that even though the same action and result could fall under any of these categories, the intent of the individual has bearing on what punishment is deserved. This same logic is used to set apart hate crimes for more severe punishment. I don't understand your point at all. There is a moral value when you say "this type of crime is more severe than this one" ; it's completly different from an objectiv differenciation like whether this crime is intended or not. So you think the entire criminal court system in the western world is completely wrong and the only thing that matters is whether or not someone was the cause of someones death? In other words you think that if you run over someone with your car because you were distracted and he didn't look when he walked out into the road, and planning and murdering your wife for the insurance money, is completely the same case and deserving the same punishment?
You are making yourself look silly making such claim.
You are trying to hinde your own feelings : for you, if a young boy hit another young boy because he is fat, it is less severe than say if he hit the same boy because he was black.
That's absolutly different from your exemple.
|
On October 29 2011 03:59 Blasterion wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2011 03:57 Newbistic wrote:On October 29 2011 03:50 Blasterion wrote:On October 29 2011 03:45 Hertzy wrote:On October 29 2011 03:18 Blasterion wrote:On October 29 2011 03:15 Chargelot wrote:On October 29 2011 03:08 Blasterion wrote:On October 29 2011 03:05 Chargelot wrote:On October 29 2011 02:58 Aterons_toss wrote:On October 29 2011 02:31 TS-Rupbar wrote:
[quote]
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. It is impressive that you can judge the force of someone hits by watching a phone camera video... It wasn't a planed assault it was most likely the bully and his friends saying : "guys, when X enters the room il hit him and you film.. lololol" which is not something unheard of, the media calls it a "planed assault against a gay" cuz that brings in the viewers... much like the 8-12 years old kids fighting in an MMA style and mostly learning how to fight in the MMA style in that fighting club that was called by BBC " Kids as young as 5 cage fighting". Assault and battery. Doing it because he's gay makes it a felony. Doesn't matter how hard the hits were. Doesn't matter how much sensationalism there is in this, you can see the fucking video. The police not only have the man power, but they have all of the 11 minutes this case would take to solve. Throw the kid in jail for a couple years and show him what the lifers think of gay sex. p.s. they think it's awesome. Again, example of punishing someone due to victim status, punish the crime for what the crime is, not who the crime was done to It's called a hate crime. Hate crime laws in the United States protect against hate crimes (also known as bias crimes) motivated by enmity or animus against a protected class. Although state laws vary, current statutes permit federal prosecution of hate crimes committed on the basis of a person's protected characteristics of race, religion, ethnicity, nationality, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, and disability. You're welcome to inspect the US Code, as well as the 50 state codes, to see the exact penalties and circumstances. On a logical level though, how does harming a human with ill intent, be a lesser crime than the harm a human of "special status" with ill intent? or are you otherwise intending to say that these special groups are fundementally different from other "normal" humans and should be judged as such? One way to look at it is that if you can't help punching people for not being exactly like you, you'll need more rehabilitation than the next violent person if you are to function in a society consisting of people not exactly like you. Hate crime laws exist to implement this in an environment where people like their laws literal and precisely defined. But does that go to in inferering that these special humans are entitled to more protection, or rather are regular humans entitled to less protection than these humans with, special traits. What the fuck did you even type. Humans with special traits? We're trying to be a civilized society here. Of course we protect the weak from the strong. We always do that. Do we tolerate people hitting women because they are physically weaker? No, we don't. Minimizing violence in society is always about protecting the weak from the strong. you would no tolerate people hitting other people at all, why would the traits of the victims even come into play?
Wow, you don't even think before you type do you. It's the attacker who cares about the traits of the victim, that's how it comes into play. Idiots who hate on others for no specific reason than the said "special trait" they have. That's how we differentiate between who is getting targeted because of what, and who therefore needs protection.
I guess that kind of thing doesn't matter in China where everyone is Chinese, nobody is gay (/sarcasm), and beating women and children behind closed doors is perfectly okay.
User was warned for this post
|
On October 29 2011 04:01 aebriol wrote:
If you disagree with that, well then, you should campaign for a change - because that's how we have decided we like our society.
Why should I? It's Norway's internal policy, how can i campaign against something is not in my interest? But you can be sure as hell that i will be acting against such a things, if someone will try implement such a solution to legal system in my country.
|
probably not the best to comment as a girl (we don't actually beat each other up much ...) but ...
someone got trashed in high school by bullies for no good reason and they justified it with some bullshit reason ...
err why is this a thread again ?
it's called ... normal high school life
people like this don't actually need any reason as far as i remember back to my high school days...
do gays need special protection now because they don't wanna deal with what virtually every guy in highschool has to ?
grow a pair...
|
On October 29 2011 04:04 Newbistic wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2011 03:59 Blasterion wrote:On October 29 2011 03:57 Newbistic wrote:On October 29 2011 03:50 Blasterion wrote:On October 29 2011 03:45 Hertzy wrote:On October 29 2011 03:18 Blasterion wrote:On October 29 2011 03:15 Chargelot wrote:On October 29 2011 03:08 Blasterion wrote:On October 29 2011 03:05 Chargelot wrote:On October 29 2011 02:58 Aterons_toss wrote:
[quote]
It is impressive that you can judge the force of someone hits by watching a phone camera video...
It wasn't a planed assault it was most likely the bully and his friends saying : "guys, when X enters the room il hit him and you film.. lololol" which is not something unheard of, the media calls it a "planed assault against a gay" cuz that brings in the viewers... much like the 8-12 years old kids fighting in an MMA style and mostly learning how to fight in the MMA style in that fighting club that was called by BBC " Kids as young as 5 cage fighting". Assault and battery. Doing it because he's gay makes it a felony. Doesn't matter how hard the hits were. Doesn't matter how much sensationalism there is in this, you can see the fucking video. The police not only have the man power, but they have all of the 11 minutes this case would take to solve. Throw the kid in jail for a couple years and show him what the lifers think of gay sex. p.s. they think it's awesome. Again, example of punishing someone due to victim status, punish the crime for what the crime is, not who the crime was done to It's called a hate crime. Hate crime laws in the United States protect against hate crimes (also known as bias crimes) motivated by enmity or animus against a protected class. Although state laws vary, current statutes permit federal prosecution of hate crimes committed on the basis of a person's protected characteristics of race, religion, ethnicity, nationality, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, and disability. You're welcome to inspect the US Code, as well as the 50 state codes, to see the exact penalties and circumstances. On a logical level though, how does harming a human with ill intent, be a lesser crime than the harm a human of "special status" with ill intent? or are you otherwise intending to say that these special groups are fundementally different from other "normal" humans and should be judged as such? One way to look at it is that if you can't help punching people for not being exactly like you, you'll need more rehabilitation than the next violent person if you are to function in a society consisting of people not exactly like you. Hate crime laws exist to implement this in an environment where people like their laws literal and precisely defined. But does that go to in inferering that these special humans are entitled to more protection, or rather are regular humans entitled to less protection than these humans with, special traits. What the fuck did you even type. Humans with special traits? We're trying to be a civilized society here. Of course we protect the weak from the strong. We always do that. Do we tolerate people hitting women because they are physically weaker? No, we don't. Minimizing violence in society is always about protecting the weak from the strong. you would no tolerate people hitting other people at all, why would the traits of the victims even come into play? Wow, you don't even think before you type do you. It's the attacker who cares about the traits of the victim, that's how it comes into play. Idiots who hate on others for no specific reason than the said "special trait" they have. That's how we differentiate between who is getting targeted because of what, and who therefore needs protection. I guess that kind of thing doesn't matter in China where everyone is Chinese, nobody is gay (/sarcasm), and beating women and children behind closed doors is perfectly okay.
Wow I think you don't even think when you read others.
For him, attacking someone for specific reason is certainly different from attacking for no reason or whatever, the problem is when the society try to make the difference between all the reasons and make a hierarchy between all those reasons on what is more or less severe : beating a fat kid should be more punished than beating a gay kid ?
He says no, and his logic is pretty good in my opinion.
|
On October 29 2011 04:05 sanya wrote:
probably not the best to comment as a girl (we don't actually beat each other up much ...) but ...
someone got trashed in high school by bullies for no good reason and they justified it with some bullshit reason ...
err why is this a thread again ?
it's called ... normal high school life
people like this don't actually need any reason as far as i remember back to my high school days...
do gays need special protection now because they don't wanna deal with what virtually every guy in highschool has to ?
grow a pair...
where you fucking live? no one going around beating each other up in school near me
|
On October 29 2011 04:05 sanya wrote:
probably not the best to comment as a girl (we don't actually beat each other up much ...) but ...
someone got trashed in high school by bullies for no good reason and they justified it with some bullshit reason ...
err why is this a thread again ?
it's called ... normal high school life
people like this don't actually need any reason as far as i remember back to my high school days...
do gays need special protection now because they don't wanna deal with what virtually every guy in highschool has to ?
grow a pair...
In my high school, maybe 1% of guys got beat up at school, way smaller than the gay proportion. Where did you go to high school? Do you think beating people up is okay? Even if it weren't a hate crime, the sentence should be higher. But the bully has proven his view extends beyond simple prejudice.
|
On October 29 2011 04:02 aebriol wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2011 04:01 Blasterion wrote:On October 29 2011 03:57 aebriol wrote:On October 29 2011 03:55 Blasterion wrote:On October 29 2011 03:50 aebriol wrote:On October 29 2011 03:41 TheRealArtemis wrote:
I dont see whats disturbing and sickening by this episode. Its called school? People bully others that "stick" out. The smart, the ugly, the fat or the kid thats gay. Its called growing up. I dont see why this gets so much attention, just because he's gay? Switch out 'gay' with black hispanic female asian whatever, and it would get the same coverage. It's moronic to say 'just because he is gay' ... no actually, it's because when you target someone because of their race, sex, sexual orientation, religion, handicaps, it's hate crime and worse than if you target someone 'because he looked at me funny'. Why? Because discrimination is NOT okay, and it should be fought against. In essence, you are committing two crimes at once - being an asshole and beating someone up, and discriminating because you have a shitty worldview. If the kid had downs syndrome, would it be okay? If it was because it was the only female in a class of males? If it was the only muslim? If it was the only atheist? Only christian? Only black? Only hispanic asian whatever minority you want? Or is it just okay because he is gay and you don't give a shit about them? Rather it is fundementally incorrect for humans to target other members of humanity to harm them with ill intent. And should be punishable however These members of humanity with special traits should not be exemptions from this, and should not be entitled to extra protection that is unavailable to other members of humanity It is not extra protection. It is extra punishment for the offender. Because of his motivation. Kind of like if you beat someone up because he came up to you and started calling you a ton of shit and you beat him up, you don't get the same punishment as if you are the one going up to someone and beating them up 'because you felt like doing it'. Get it? It is as simple as he was motivated to assault another human because of ill intent, the victim should not be catagorized with a trait such as gender,race, sexual orientation, he was assaulted as a human being, and the offender will be punished for assaulting a human being with ill intentions Motivation matter. It's the simple fact of western society. Intent and motivation matter when it comes to your punishment. It's that way in the court system, and I see no reason why it shouldn't be that way in school as well. If you want to discuss universal or relative moralism I am always up to it, but this is a simple fact: motivation and intent matter in western society.
Then by what definition to you mark these, priviledged individuals?
Weight?
Height?
Race?
Gender?
Orientation?
Ugly?
Income?
Plays Starcaft?
There is a million way some one can discriminate another.
What's more severe? Hate crime vs Starcraft players or Hate crime against gays?
|
On October 29 2011 04:08 tso wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2011 04:05 sanya wrote:
probably not the best to comment as a girl (we don't actually beat each other up much ...) but ...
someone got trashed in high school by bullies for no good reason and they justified it with some bullshit reason ...
err why is this a thread again ?
it's called ... normal high school life
people like this don't actually need any reason as far as i remember back to my high school days...
do gays need special protection now because they don't wanna deal with what virtually every guy in highschool has to ?
grow a pair... where you fucking live? no one going around beating each other up in school near me
a capitol city , dunno if it's any different in some backwater place somewhere else
but i can't for the life of me remember any school i went to that didn't have your run of the mill bully types that got a kick off of beating up the nerds/smug idiots for no good reason other than "because"
In my high school, maybe 1% of guys got beat up at school, way smaller than the gay proportion. Where did you go to high school? Do you think beating people up is okay? Even if it weren't a hate crime, the sentence should be higher. But the bully has proven his view extends beyond simple prejudice.
of course it isn't ...
the point being you're dealing with a group of humans
you're gonna have your fair share of disfunctional douchebags in high school
deal with it
this isn't going to go away ...ever...as long as you're going to school with actual people
there's gonna be bad apples no matter where you are
|
On October 29 2011 04:11 sanya wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2011 04:08 tso wrote:On October 29 2011 04:05 sanya wrote:
probably not the best to comment as a girl (we don't actually beat each other up much ...) but ...
someone got trashed in high school by bullies for no good reason and they justified it with some bullshit reason ...
err why is this a thread again ?
it's called ... normal high school life
people like this don't actually need any reason as far as i remember back to my high school days...
do gays need special protection now because they don't wanna deal with what virtually every guy in highschool has to ?
grow a pair... where you fucking live? no one going around beating each other up in school near me a capitol city , dunno if it's any different in some backwater place somewhere else but i can't for the life of me remember any school i went to that didn't have your run of the mill bully types that got a kick off of beating up the nerds/smug idiots for no good reason other than "because"
doesn't justify anything, simply because "alot of kids bully eachother"
|
On October 29 2011 04:04 hitthat wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2011 04:01 aebriol wrote:
If you disagree with that, well then, you should campaign for a change - because that's how we have decided we like our society. Why should I? It's Norway's internal policy, how can i campaign against something is not in my interest? But you can be sure as hell that i will be acting against such a things, if someone will try implement such a solution to legal system in my country.
My mistake, poland is one of the few western countries that doesn't have it.
It is however a fact of life in most western nations.
http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/our-work/fighting-discrimination/hate-crime-report-card/hate-crime-report-card-poland/
Albania, Cyprus, Estonia, San Marino, Slovenia and Turkey have no hate crime laws.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_crime#European_Union
But I see you are correct about Poland ... I just sort of assumed you were doing basically the same shit as most everyone else.
|
On October 29 2011 03:50 aebriol wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2011 03:41 TheRealArtemis wrote:
I dont see whats disturbing and sickening by this episode. Its called school? People bully others that "stick" out. The smart, the ugly, the fat or the kid thats gay. Its called growing up. I dont see why this gets so much attention, just because he's gay? Switch out 'gay' with black hispanic female asian whatever, and it would get the same coverage. It's moronic to say 'just because he is gay' ... no actually, it's because when you target someone because of their race, sex, sexual orientation, religion, handicaps, it's hate crime and worse than if you target someone 'because he looked at me funny'. Why? Because discrimination is NOT okay, and it should be fought against. In essence, you are committing two crimes at once - being an asshole and beating someone up, and discriminating because you have a shitty worldview. If the kid had downs syndrome, would it be okay? If it was because it was the only female in a class of males? If it was the only muslim? If it was the only atheist? Only christian? Only black? Only hispanic asian whatever minority you want? Or is it just okay because he is gay and you don't give a shit about them?
I dont care if he was a muslim, female or white. That doesnt make him special, or in need of extra protection. The story gets ekstra hyped because he's gay. There was probably hundred of kids gettin beat up in school that week. But the story chosen was because he was GAY. Not because he was a victim of violence.
Who decides what makes a hatecrime. Is it enough to have blue eyes, be fat? I see the act of violence the same, doesnt matter if he's gay or straight. Then the value of a certain peopls sexuality is more worth then the rest.
|
On October 29 2011 04:07 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2011 04:04 Newbistic wrote:On October 29 2011 03:59 Blasterion wrote:On October 29 2011 03:57 Newbistic wrote:On October 29 2011 03:50 Blasterion wrote:On October 29 2011 03:45 Hertzy wrote:On October 29 2011 03:18 Blasterion wrote:On October 29 2011 03:15 Chargelot wrote:On October 29 2011 03:08 Blasterion wrote:On October 29 2011 03:05 Chargelot wrote:
[quote]
Assault and battery. Doing it because he's gay makes it a felony.
Doesn't matter how hard the hits were. Doesn't matter how much sensationalism there is in this, you can see the fucking video. The police not only have the man power, but they have all of the 11 minutes this case would take to solve.
Throw the kid in jail for a couple years and show him what the lifers think of gay sex.
p.s. they think it's awesome. Again, example of punishing someone due to victim status, punish the crime for what the crime is, not who the crime was done to It's called a hate crime. Hate crime laws in the United States protect against hate crimes (also known as bias crimes) motivated by enmity or animus against a protected class. Although state laws vary, current statutes permit federal prosecution of hate crimes committed on the basis of a person's protected characteristics of race, religion, ethnicity, nationality, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, and disability. You're welcome to inspect the US Code, as well as the 50 state codes, to see the exact penalties and circumstances. On a logical level though, how does harming a human with ill intent, be a lesser crime than the harm a human of "special status" with ill intent? or are you otherwise intending to say that these special groups are fundementally different from other "normal" humans and should be judged as such? One way to look at it is that if you can't help punching people for not being exactly like you, you'll need more rehabilitation than the next violent person if you are to function in a society consisting of people not exactly like you. Hate crime laws exist to implement this in an environment where people like their laws literal and precisely defined. But does that go to in inferering that these special humans are entitled to more protection, or rather are regular humans entitled to less protection than these humans with, special traits. What the fuck did you even type. Humans with special traits? We're trying to be a civilized society here. Of course we protect the weak from the strong. We always do that. Do we tolerate people hitting women because they are physically weaker? No, we don't. Minimizing violence in society is always about protecting the weak from the strong. you would no tolerate people hitting other people at all, why would the traits of the victims even come into play? Wow, you don't even think before you type do you. It's the attacker who cares about the traits of the victim, that's how it comes into play. Idiots who hate on others for no specific reason than the said "special trait" they have. That's how we differentiate between who is getting targeted because of what, and who therefore needs protection. I guess that kind of thing doesn't matter in China where everyone is Chinese, nobody is gay (/sarcasm), and beating women and children behind closed doors is perfectly okay. Wow I think you don't even think when you read others. For him, attacking someone for specific reason is certainly different from attacking for no reason or whatever, the problem is when the society try to make the difference between all the reasons and make a hierarchy between all those reasons on what is more or less severe : beating a fat kid should be more punished than beating a gay kid ? He says no, and his logic is pretty good in my opinion.
Sorry, I got a bit too jaded in the moment. But it still matters that punishment is doled out based on who is attacked for what trait they possess. It (in theory) allows the society or the law to educate people that it isn't okay to target someone because of XX trait. It's perfectly conceivable to imagine someone who thinks attacking overweight people is clearly wrong, but attacking homosexuals is perfectly acceptable. The attacker makes these distinctions, and when the law punishes because the distinction is made, it tells the individual attacker what is wrong, and why. I believe through trial and error in general law systems have gradually found out that this is far better way to persecute someone than just an umbrella rule of "no violence".
|
On October 29 2011 04:09 Blasterion wrote:
Then by what definition to you mark these, priviledged individuals?
Weight?
Height?
Race?
Gender?
Orientation?
Ugly?
Income?
Plays Starcaft?
There is a million way some one can discriminate another.
What's more severe? Hate crime vs Starcraft players or Hate crime against gays?
This sort of questions are easily answered; if someone were to publicly admit the trait, would there be people calling for violence to be done on them for that precise reason? If yes, then extra deterrent and/or rehabilitation is required for this particular motivation.
|
On October 29 2011 04:09 Blasterion wrote:
What's more severe? Hate crime vs Starcraft players or Hate crime against gays?
That you are even asking that question makes you someone I have no respect for whatsoever.
It's hate crime against gays that's worse. Obviously.
Beating up someone because they play starcraft isn't hate crime ... at all. You don't understand the term.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
