|
On October 29 2011 04:15 aebriol wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2011 04:04 hitthat wrote: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_UnionBut I see you are correct about Poland ... I just sort of assumed you were doing basically the same shit as most everyone else.
Western societies are all going from crisis to crisis, whether it is social crisis or economical crisis, so I don't think the recent development of their legislation should be seen as the best possible.
On October 29 2011 04:17 aebriol wrote:Show nested quote +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.
And I have no respect for you because of the answer you made. It's absolutly idiotic. If one day a guy decide to beat another because he plays starcraft, he should be less punished than says if he beat a gay ? It's absolutly idiotic.
|
On October 29 2011 04:15 TheRealArtemis wrote:Show nested quote +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? 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.
because society should stop patterns of violence
|
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" Show nested quote +
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
And they should be reasonably punished and made an example. If you're not arguing against that what are you saying? I agree that assault will not stop.
|
On October 29 2011 04:15 TheRealArtemis wrote:Show nested quote +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? 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.
If he was beaten up because he was a gay black muslim there would be 3 times the outrage. if It was just because of one of those traits, you'd see just about the same coverage as it's getting now.
It's picked up because it's hate crime.
|
On October 29 2011 04:18 tso wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2011 04:15 TheRealArtemis 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? 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. because society should stop patterns of violence
By creating "hate crime" you are just feeding those "patterns of violence" because you are legally saying that a certain type of population is different from the rest which create even more frustration.
In fact, it's just a discretionary act and it ruin the credibility of the state.
|
On October 29 2011 04:20 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2011 04:18 tso wrote:On October 29 2011 04:15 TheRealArtemis 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? 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. because society should stop patterns of violence By creating "hate crime" you are just feeding those "patterns of violence" because you are legally saying that a certain type of population is different from the rest which create even more frustration.
thats a fair view to have, how then do you suppose you would cut down on prejudiced violence? slow assimilation and death of old people is only turning a blind eye to hate speech/tendencies.
|
On October 29 2011 04:17 aebriol wrote:Show nested quote +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.
What is your definition of hate crime then?
Because in my eyes they are both acts of harm to another with ill intentions
how is attacking someone for orientation worse than attacking someone with similar ferocity for playing starcraft?
|
On October 29 2011 04:22 Blasterion wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2011 04:17 aebriol wrote: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. What is your definition of hate crime then? Because in my eyes they are both acts of harm to another with ill intentions how is attacking someone for orientation worse than attacking someone with similar ferocity for playing starcraft?
number of people taking the attacker seriously i suppose
|
On October 29 2011 04:22 tso wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2011 04:20 WhiteDog wrote:On October 29 2011 04:18 tso wrote:On October 29 2011 04:15 TheRealArtemis 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? 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. because society should stop patterns of violence By creating "hate crime" you are just feeding those "patterns of violence" because you are legally saying that a certain type of population is different from the rest which create even more frustration. thats a fair view to have, how then do you suppose you would cut down on prejudiced violence? slow assimilation and death of old people is only turning a blind eye to hate speech/tendencies.
Punish every crime, don't let violence continue and show that everyone is the same through your act and not through speach. You will not eradicate crime, but at least the state will keep its credibility which is important in the world of today.
|
On October 29 2011 04:15 TheRealArtemis wrote:Show nested quote +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? 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.
A kid getting mercilessly beaten inside a classroom is not *part of growing up*. Students are not supposed to go through something like that. Ideally, we shouldn't be living in such a world, and so calling attention to something this (regardless of whether or not the boy is gay) is necessary. What the bully did is illegal (it's called assault, not a typical school fight), and you telling the battered kid to walk it off is not only insensitive, but it's turning a blind eye to justice.
What makes it a hate crime is that the bully is a bigoted jerk who beat up on a kid for no reason other than his sexual orientation. It's the same stuff that the KKK does to blacks. This is the type of thing we don't want running rampant in society, and to dismiss it in schools- which are supposed to be safe havens and places of education for our students- is appalling. And it's astounding that you're of the mindset that bullies should be allowed to get away with this kind of behavior with nothing more than a slap on the wrist. It only reinforces the belief that it's okay to discriminate against others.
For crying out loud, the gay kid got a concussion and broke a tooth. The bully totally beat the shit out of him. This should be hyped, and the jerk should be arrested.
|
On October 29 2011 03:55 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +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. Show nested quote +Kind of like being caught and sentenced for murder, or premeditated murder. You killed someone, is either worse than the other? Well society as a whole think so ... Murder and premeditated murder are different because society think that it is possible to lose yourself in a certain situation, while when you premeditate your act, it means you really used your brain and thought about it deeply. That's all. It's completly different from saying : listen, because you hit this gay kid and not this fat one, you will be punished more.
Ugh, the number of misconceptions about what terms mean in this thread is staggering. If you didnt know that sentencing in a murder investigation is dependent on motivation then you are completely uninformed and shouldnt be making a post. What do you think the difference between second degree murder and voluntary manslaughter is?
|
On October 29 2011 04:25 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2011 04:22 tso wrote:On October 29 2011 04:20 WhiteDog wrote:On October 29 2011 04:18 tso wrote:On October 29 2011 04:15 TheRealArtemis 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? 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. because society should stop patterns of violence By creating "hate crime" you are just feeding those "patterns of violence" because you are legally saying that a certain type of population is different from the rest which create even more frustration. thats a fair view to have, how then do you suppose you would cut down on prejudiced violence? slow assimilation and death of old people is only turning a blind eye to hate speech/tendencies. Punish every crime, don't let violence continue and show that everyone is the same through your act and not through speach. You will not eradicate crime, but at least the state will keep its credibility which is important in the world of today.
yea.. i suppose my issue is more with allowing prejudice (whatever sort) to stick around unchecked, which law has no real answer for
|
|
|
On October 29 2011 04:22 tso wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2011 04:20 WhiteDog wrote:On October 29 2011 04:18 tso wrote:On October 29 2011 04:15 TheRealArtemis 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? 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. because society should stop patterns of violence By creating "hate crime" you are just feeding those "patterns of violence" because you are legally saying that a certain type of population is different from the rest which create even more frustration. thats a fair view to have, how then do you suppose you would cut down on prejudiced violence? slow assimilation and death of old people is only turning a blind eye to hate speech/tendencies.
Edit: nevermind
|
On October 29 2011 04:22 Blasterion wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2011 04:17 aebriol wrote: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. What is your definition of hate crime then? Because in my eyes they are both acts of harm to another with ill intentions how is attacking someone for orientation worse than attacking someone with similar ferocity for playing starcraft?
You're arguing for the sake of arguing, or you sincerely don't understand much, but especially not crime, motivation, and mens rea. Either way, it's been explained a thousand times. What constitutes a hate crime in my country is different than in your country, but many countries have these laws.
What makes the two different is that you can choose to play starcraft, you can't choose to be gay. You can't choose to be black. You can't choose to be old. You can't choose to feel like a man trapped in a woman's body. These are all natural things, and therefore people's rights to be those things must be defended by not allowing the metaphorical genocide of those people. To prevent excluding those members from our society, not because they choose to be something, but because they are something without choice.
A murderer chooses to murder.
A starcraft player chooses to be a starcraft player
But a woman didn't choose to be a woman. So cutting her throat for that is a little more serious than cutting her throat for her money. Because, as I've said, you present a credible threat to the rest of the people who are born with this innate characteristic.
|
On October 29 2011 04:27 Velocirapture 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. Kind of like being caught and sentenced for murder, or premeditated murder. You killed someone, is either worse than the other? Well society as a whole think so ... Murder and premeditated murder are different because society think that it is possible to lose yourself in a certain situation, while when you premeditate your act, it means you really used your brain and thought about it deeply. That's all. It's completly different from saying : listen, because you hit this gay kid and not this fat one, you will be punished more. Ugh, the number of misconceptions about what terms mean in this thread is staggering. If you didnt know that sentencing in a murder investigation is dependent on motivation then you are completely uninformed and shouldnt be making a post. What do you think the difference between second degree murder and voluntary manslaughter is?
You shouldn't even post in this thread if you don't know what the heart of the subject is. Nobody care about the legal term or whatever, the main problem is whether you should punish more a crime if the reasons of the act is that he is gay and not because he is fat or anything else.
Also, I never said second degree or voluntary manslaughter you know, you should read my post again I was talking about premeditated or not.
On October 29 2011 04:30 Chargelot wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2011 04:22 Blasterion wrote:On October 29 2011 04:17 aebriol wrote: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. What is your definition of hate crime then? Because in my eyes they are both acts of harm to another with ill intentions how is attacking someone for orientation worse than attacking someone with similar ferocity for playing starcraft? You're arguing for the sake of arguing, or you sincerely don't understand much, but especially not crime, motivation, and mens rea. Either way, it's been explained a thousand times. What constitutes a hate crime in my country is different than in your country, but many countries have these laws. What makes the two different is that you can choose to play starcraft, you can't choose to be gay. You can't choose to be black. You can't choose to be old. You can't choose to feel like a man trapped in a woman's body. These are all natural things, and therefore people's rights to be those things must be defended by not allowing the metaphorical genocide of those people. To prevent excluding those members from our society, not because they choose to be something, but because they are something without choice. A murderer chooses to murder. A starcraft player chooses to be a starcraft player But a woman didn't choose to be a woman. So cutting her throat for that is a little more serious than cutting her throat for her money. Because, as I've said, you present a credible threat to the rest of the people who are born with this innate characteristic.
You are constantly evading his own point, it's kinda annoying. He was not talking about a woman being killed for her money. Read again.
|
On October 29 2011 04:31 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2011 04:27 Velocirapture wrote: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. Kind of like being caught and sentenced for murder, or premeditated murder. You killed someone, is either worse than the other? Well society as a whole think so ... Murder and premeditated murder are different because society think that it is possible to lose yourself in a certain situation, while when you premeditate your act, it means you really used your brain and thought about it deeply. That's all. It's completly different from saying : listen, because you hit this gay kid and not this fat one, you will be punished more. Ugh, the number of misconceptions about what terms mean in this thread is staggering. If you didnt know that sentencing in a murder investigation is dependent on motivation then you are completely uninformed and shouldnt be making a post. What do you think the difference between second degree murder and voluntary manslaughter is? You shouldn't even post in this thread if you don't know what the heart of the subject is. Nobody care about the legal term or whatever, the main problem is whether you should punish more a crime if the reasons of the act is that he is gay and not because he is fat or anything else. Also, I never said second degree or voluntary manslaughter you know, you should read my post again I was talking about premeditated or not. Show nested quote +On October 29 2011 04:30 Chargelot wrote:On October 29 2011 04:22 Blasterion wrote:On October 29 2011 04:17 aebriol wrote: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. What is your definition of hate crime then? Because in my eyes they are both acts of harm to another with ill intentions how is attacking someone for orientation worse than attacking someone with similar ferocity for playing starcraft? You're arguing for the sake of arguing, or you sincerely don't understand much, but especially not crime, motivation, and mens rea. Either way, it's been explained a thousand times. What constitutes a hate crime in my country is different than in your country, but many countries have these laws. What makes the two different is that you can choose to play starcraft, you can't choose to be gay. You can't choose to be black. You can't choose to be old. You can't choose to feel like a man trapped in a woman's body. These are all natural things, and therefore people's rights to be those things must be defended by not allowing the metaphorical genocide of those people. To prevent excluding those members from our society, not because they choose to be something, but because they are something without choice. A murderer chooses to murder. A starcraft player chooses to be a starcraft player But a woman didn't choose to be a woman. So cutting her throat for that is a little more serious than cutting her throat for her money. Because, as I've said, you present a credible threat to the rest of the people who are born with this innate characteristic. You are constantly evading his own point, it's kinda annoying. He was not talking about a woman being killed for her money. Read again.
You not only avoided my point, you did it while accusing me of avoiding his point. Perhaps you should read my post for the first time before commenting on it.
|
On October 29 2011 04:35 Chargelot wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2011 04:31 WhiteDog wrote:On October 29 2011 04:27 Velocirapture wrote: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. Kind of like being caught and sentenced for murder, or premeditated murder. You killed someone, is either worse than the other? Well society as a whole think so ... Murder and premeditated murder are different because society think that it is possible to lose yourself in a certain situation, while when you premeditate your act, it means you really used your brain and thought about it deeply. That's all. It's completly different from saying : listen, because you hit this gay kid and not this fat one, you will be punished more. Ugh, the number of misconceptions about what terms mean in this thread is staggering. If you didnt know that sentencing in a murder investigation is dependent on motivation then you are completely uninformed and shouldnt be making a post. What do you think the difference between second degree murder and voluntary manslaughter is? You shouldn't even post in this thread if you don't know what the heart of the subject is. Nobody care about the legal term or whatever, the main problem is whether you should punish more a crime if the reasons of the act is that he is gay and not because he is fat or anything else. Also, I never said second degree or voluntary manslaughter you know, you should read my post again I was talking about premeditated or not. On October 29 2011 04:30 Chargelot wrote:On October 29 2011 04:22 Blasterion wrote:On October 29 2011 04:17 aebriol wrote: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. What is your definition of hate crime then? Because in my eyes they are both acts of harm to another with ill intentions how is attacking someone for orientation worse than attacking someone with similar ferocity for playing starcraft? You're arguing for the sake of arguing, or you sincerely don't understand much, but especially not crime, motivation, and mens rea. Either way, it's been explained a thousand times. What constitutes a hate crime in my country is different than in your country, but many countries have these laws. What makes the two different is that you can choose to play starcraft, you can't choose to be gay. You can't choose to be black. You can't choose to be old. You can't choose to feel like a man trapped in a woman's body. These are all natural things, and therefore people's rights to be those things must be defended by not allowing the metaphorical genocide of those people. To prevent excluding those members from our society, not because they choose to be something, but because they are something without choice. A murderer chooses to murder. A starcraft player chooses to be a starcraft player But a woman didn't choose to be a woman. So cutting her throat for that is a little more serious than cutting her throat for her money. Because, as I've said, you present a credible threat to the rest of the people who are born with this innate characteristic. You are constantly evading his own point, it's kinda annoying. He was not talking about a woman being killed for her money. Read again. You not only avoided my point, you did it while accusing me of avoiding his point. Perhaps you should read my post for the first time before commenting on it.
No, this has been discussed a thousand time. Your point is silly, you are arguing that the starcraft player decided to play starcraft : so what about fat guys ? Or what about a poor nerdy kid with glass ? Did he chose to have a bad eyesight ?
|
On October 29 2011 04:36 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2011 04:35 Chargelot wrote:On October 29 2011 04:31 WhiteDog wrote:On October 29 2011 04:27 Velocirapture wrote: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. Kind of like being caught and sentenced for murder, or premeditated murder. You killed someone, is either worse than the other? Well society as a whole think so ... Murder and premeditated murder are different because society think that it is possible to lose yourself in a certain situation, while when you premeditate your act, it means you really used your brain and thought about it deeply. That's all. It's completly different from saying : listen, because you hit this gay kid and not this fat one, you will be punished more. Ugh, the number of misconceptions about what terms mean in this thread is staggering. If you didnt know that sentencing in a murder investigation is dependent on motivation then you are completely uninformed and shouldnt be making a post. What do you think the difference between second degree murder and voluntary manslaughter is? You shouldn't even post in this thread if you don't know what the heart of the subject is. Nobody care about the legal term or whatever, the main problem is whether you should punish more a crime if the reasons of the act is that he is gay and not because he is fat or anything else. Also, I never said second degree or voluntary manslaughter you know, you should read my post again I was talking about premeditated or not. On October 29 2011 04:30 Chargelot wrote:On October 29 2011 04:22 Blasterion wrote:On October 29 2011 04:17 aebriol wrote: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. What is your definition of hate crime then? Because in my eyes they are both acts of harm to another with ill intentions how is attacking someone for orientation worse than attacking someone with similar ferocity for playing starcraft? You're arguing for the sake of arguing, or you sincerely don't understand much, but especially not crime, motivation, and mens rea. Either way, it's been explained a thousand times. What constitutes a hate crime in my country is different than in your country, but many countries have these laws. What makes the two different is that you can choose to play starcraft, you can't choose to be gay. You can't choose to be black. You can't choose to be old. You can't choose to feel like a man trapped in a woman's body. These are all natural things, and therefore people's rights to be those things must be defended by not allowing the metaphorical genocide of those people. To prevent excluding those members from our society, not because they choose to be something, but because they are something without choice. A murderer chooses to murder. A starcraft player chooses to be a starcraft player But a woman didn't choose to be a woman. So cutting her throat for that is a little more serious than cutting her throat for her money. Because, as I've said, you present a credible threat to the rest of the people who are born with this innate characteristic. You are constantly evading his own point, it's kinda annoying. He was not talking about a woman being killed for her money. Read again. You not only avoided my point, you did it while accusing me of avoiding his point. Perhaps you should read my post for the first time before commenting on it. No, this has been discussed a thousand time. Your point is silly, you are arguing that the starcraft player decided to play starcraft : so what about fat guys ? Or what about a poor nerdy kid with glass ? Did he chose to have a bad eyesight ?
He certainly picked out his glasses. He didn't have a biological function that forced him to pick stupid looking glasses.
|
On October 29 2011 04:38 Chargelot wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2011 04:36 WhiteDog wrote:On October 29 2011 04:35 Chargelot wrote:On October 29 2011 04:31 WhiteDog wrote:On October 29 2011 04:27 Velocirapture wrote: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. Kind of like being caught and sentenced for murder, or premeditated murder. You killed someone, is either worse than the other? Well society as a whole think so ... Murder and premeditated murder are different because society think that it is possible to lose yourself in a certain situation, while when you premeditate your act, it means you really used your brain and thought about it deeply. That's all. It's completly different from saying : listen, because you hit this gay kid and not this fat one, you will be punished more. Ugh, the number of misconceptions about what terms mean in this thread is staggering. If you didnt know that sentencing in a murder investigation is dependent on motivation then you are completely uninformed and shouldnt be making a post. What do you think the difference between second degree murder and voluntary manslaughter is? You shouldn't even post in this thread if you don't know what the heart of the subject is. Nobody care about the legal term or whatever, the main problem is whether you should punish more a crime if the reasons of the act is that he is gay and not because he is fat or anything else. Also, I never said second degree or voluntary manslaughter you know, you should read my post again I was talking about premeditated or not. On October 29 2011 04:30 Chargelot wrote:On October 29 2011 04:22 Blasterion wrote:On October 29 2011 04:17 aebriol wrote: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. What is your definition of hate crime then? Because in my eyes they are both acts of harm to another with ill intentions how is attacking someone for orientation worse than attacking someone with similar ferocity for playing starcraft? You're arguing for the sake of arguing, or you sincerely don't understand much, but especially not crime, motivation, and mens rea. Either way, it's been explained a thousand times. What constitutes a hate crime in my country is different than in your country, but many countries have these laws. What makes the two different is that you can choose to play starcraft, you can't choose to be gay. You can't choose to be black. You can't choose to be old. You can't choose to feel like a man trapped in a woman's body. These are all natural things, and therefore people's rights to be those things must be defended by not allowing the metaphorical genocide of those people. To prevent excluding those members from our society, not because they choose to be something, but because they are something without choice. A murderer chooses to murder. A starcraft player chooses to be a starcraft player But a woman didn't choose to be a woman. So cutting her throat for that is a little more serious than cutting her throat for her money. Because, as I've said, you present a credible threat to the rest of the people who are born with this innate characteristic. You are constantly evading his own point, it's kinda annoying. He was not talking about a woman being killed for her money. Read again. You not only avoided my point, you did it while accusing me of avoiding his point. Perhaps you should read my post for the first time before commenting on it. No, this has been discussed a thousand time. Your point is silly, you are arguing that the starcraft player decided to play starcraft : so what about fat guys ? Or what about a poor nerdy kid with glass ? Did he chose to have a bad eyesight ? He certainly picked out his glasses. He didn't have a biological function that forced him to pick stupid looking glasses.
quit derailing with this shit
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
