|
On October 29 2011 04:26 DarkPlasmaBall 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. 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.
And I feel for him. But gettin into school fighs IS growing up. Offcause nobody should grow up gettin beat up in school. But this isnt an ideal world. Its actually pretty shitty when you hear about all that crap, violence and hate that goes on around the world. You cant avoid fighting. You cant, unless you duck and cover everytime trouble appear.
But getting back to topic. I do hope the kid gets some kind of punishment. Its not like I try to defend his action. I just question why these type of storie creates so much drama, because he's gay. It wasnt the random kid that was "normal" that got the headlines. He probalbly got a worse beating. but he wasnt gay, so he's in no need of special protection.
|
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.
What if some1 hate crimes me for having money? Are you going to say I chose to be rich?
|
On October 29 2011 04:42 Blasterion wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2011 04:38 Chargelot wrote: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. What if some1 hate crimes me for having money? Are you going to say I chose to be rich?
Are you physically capable of being not rich? Yes. It's a choice. You could literally set all your money on fire. You can't suddenly stop being gay. It doesn't work like that.
|
On October 29 2011 04:41 TheRealArtemis wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2011 04:26 DarkPlasmaBall 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. 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. And I feel for him. But gettin into school fighs IS growing up. Offcause nobody should grow up gettin beat up in school. But this isnt an ideal world. Its actually pretty shitty when you hear about all that crap, violence and hate that goes on around the world. You cant avoid fighting. You cant, unless you duck and cover everytime trouble appear. But getting back to topic. I do hope the kid gets some kind of punishment. Its not like I try to defend his action. I just question why these type of storie creates so much drama, because he's gay. It wasnt the random kid that was "normal" that got the headlines. He probalbly got a worse beating. but he wasnt gay, so he's in no need of special protection.
lol.. i'm just imagining fox news reporting on the violent leftist tendencies to beat up white protestant children..
*shrug* news is always about the interesting cases.. it's depressing as it is, may as well cover the interesting stuff..
On October 29 2011 04:44 Chargelot wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2011 04:42 Blasterion wrote:On October 29 2011 04:38 Chargelot wrote: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. What if some1 hate crimes me for having money? Are you going to say I chose to be rich? Are you physically capable of being not rich? Yes. It's a choice. You could literally set all your money on fire. You can't suddenly stop being gay. It doesn't work like that.
problem there is all the people who say it's not a choice, and a cancer on society :/
|
On October 28 2011 09:50 semantics wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2011 09:33 travis wrote:On October 28 2011 09:25 turdburgler wrote:On October 28 2011 09:20 Candadar wrote:On October 28 2011 09:10 Odal wrote:On October 28 2011 09:09 semantics wrote:On October 28 2011 09:04 zakmaa wrote:
Violence is violence, because it was over his sexual orientation does make it more disturbing, but it should neither heighten nor lower his punishment. Having said that, I do believe that there should be police involvement and charges laid, however that won't happen unless the kid that was beaten tries to get that to happen. See it's statements like this that make me think TL is filled with 12 year olds Poll: How old are you?18 to 25 (25) 45% 25 or older (18) 32% 13 to 18 years old (9) 16% 1 - 12 years old (4) 7% 56 total votes Your vote: How old are you? (Vote): 1 - 12 years old
(Vote): 13 to 18 years old
(Vote): 18 to 25
(Vote): 25 or older
Just out of curiosity Arguing against someone's point by saying they must be children is not the most logical way to go about this. Yes, yes it is. Children, by default, have less experience with the world, experience with different worldviews, and their opinions are skewed. no they dont existing in the world doesnt give you more experience. think about what you just said It is rather fascinating to how people judge people as a group. Technically in the eyes of the law we are not all equal,there is no reason for us to be equal i do not expect a 5 foot tall man to dunk a basketball i would expect a 6 foot 4 man to, context is everything. This crime was committed by kids, do kids get the same punishment as adults? At which age do they suddenly obtain the ability to understand the gravity of their discourse? Yet if we differentiate children why not protected groups ie under hate crimes? The reason for children being lighter sentence is that they cannot quite understand morality and ethics in the same way a fully grown adult can and thus are unfit to be tried as an adult. So a heavier sentence for attacking a person based on them belonging to a group, homosexual or race et al is rational. With that, if you attacked a person based on them being part of a group you're attacking a group not a single person, which distinguishes your actions as a threat to the group not to the person and thus isn't treated the same. If i assault someone for being an ass hole i'm unlikely to assault another person, unless they are real jerks to me, if i assault a man because he is gay i am still likely to assault more people based on them being gay. The motivation is compeltely different for the same crime and motivation is always needed in violent crimes for proper sentencing. Why aren't children allowed to serve on juries? Same reason why i can invalidate an argument based on the age of a person without going into deep detail why it's wrong. We make laws based on generalizations but we sentence crimes based on the individual.
I rather not make the same argument again and again only to be shot down by people going, "yeah i don't see it, all crimes are equal no special treatment here"
|
On October 29 2011 04:44 tso wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2011 04:41 TheRealArtemis wrote:On October 29 2011 04:26 DarkPlasmaBall 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. 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. And I feel for him. But gettin into school fighs IS growing up. Offcause nobody should grow up gettin beat up in school. But this isnt an ideal world. Its actually pretty shitty when you hear about all that crap, violence and hate that goes on around the world. You cant avoid fighting. You cant, unless you duck and cover everytime trouble appear. But getting back to topic. I do hope the kid gets some kind of punishment. Its not like I try to defend his action. I just question why these type of storie creates so much drama, because he's gay. It wasnt the random kid that was "normal" that got the headlines. He probalbly got a worse beating. but he wasnt gay, so he's in no need of special protection. lol.. i'm just imagining fox news reporting on the violent leftist tendencies to beat up white protestant children.. *shrug* news is always about the interesting cases.. it's depressing as it is, may as well cover the interesting stuff.. Show nested quote +On October 29 2011 04:44 Chargelot wrote:On October 29 2011 04:42 Blasterion wrote:On October 29 2011 04:38 Chargelot wrote: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:
[quote]
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. What if some1 hate crimes me for having money? Are you going to say I chose to be rich? Are you physically capable of being not rich? Yes. It's a choice. You could literally set all your money on fire. You can't suddenly stop being gay. It doesn't work like that. problem there is all the people who say it's not a choice, and a cancer on society :/
Well, those people are entitled to their opinion just like you and I. But the federal government of the United States recognizes it as not being a choice by including it in the definition of a hate crime, and preventing discrimination against it.
|
This thread is too full of people who use their poor reading comprehension to bolster their 'set in stone' misconceptions (im lookin at you WhiteDog). The amount of non-sequitur posts would be bearable if they didnt cherry pick words out of context from good posts to push their agenda.
|
On October 29 2011 04:46 semantics wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2011 09:50 semantics wrote:On October 28 2011 09:33 travis wrote:On October 28 2011 09:25 turdburgler wrote:On October 28 2011 09:20 Candadar wrote:On October 28 2011 09:10 Odal wrote:On October 28 2011 09:09 semantics wrote:On October 28 2011 09:04 zakmaa wrote:
Violence is violence, because it was over his sexual orientation does make it more disturbing, but it should neither heighten nor lower his punishment. Having said that, I do believe that there should be police involvement and charges laid, however that won't happen unless the kid that was beaten tries to get that to happen. See it's statements like this that make me think TL is filled with 12 year olds Poll: How old are you?18 to 25 (25) 45% 25 or older (18) 32% 13 to 18 years old (9) 16% 1 - 12 years old (4) 7% 56 total votes Your vote: How old are you? (Vote): 1 - 12 years old
(Vote): 13 to 18 years old
(Vote): 18 to 25
(Vote): 25 or older
Just out of curiosity Arguing against someone's point by saying they must be children is not the most logical way to go about this. Yes, yes it is. Children, by default, have less experience with the world, experience with different worldviews, and their opinions are skewed. no they dont existing in the world doesnt give you more experience. think about what you just said It is rather fascinating to how people judge people as a group. Technically in the eyes of the law we are not all equal,there is no reason for us to be equal i do not expect a 5 foot tall man to dunk a basketball i would expect a 6 foot 4 man to, context is everything. This crime was committed by kids, do kids get the same punishment as adults? At which age do they suddenly obtain the ability to understand the gravity of their discourse? Yet if we differentiate children why not protected groups ie under hate crimes? The reason for children being lighter sentence is that they cannot quite understand morality and ethics in the same way a fully grown adult can and thus are unfit to be tried as an adult. So a heavier sentence for attacking a person based on them belonging to a group, homosexual or race et al is rational. With that, if you attacked a person based on them being part of a group you're attacking a group not a single person, which distinguishes your actions as a threat to the group not to the person and thus isn't treated the same. If i assault someone for being an ass hole i'm unlikely to assault another person, unless they are real jerks to me, if i assault a man because he is gay i am still likely to assault more people based on them being gay. The motivation is compeltely different for the same crime and motivation is always needed in violent crimes for proper sentencing. Why aren't children allowed to serve on juries? Same reason why i can invalidate an argument based on the age of a person without going into deep detail why it's wrong. We make laws based on generalizations but we sentence crimes based on the individual. I rather not make the same argument again and again only to be shot down by people going, "yeah i don't see it, all crimes are equal no special treatment here"
Judge a crime for what the crime is not who it was done to.
|
He certainly picked out his glasses. He didn't have a biological function that forced him to pick stupid looking glasses.
*facepalm*
...
Ok, I'm fine now.
Look, we see the segregation in punishing the violence with horrible motivation unfair. We want bastards being punished for unjustified assault against the human being (victim didnt take any action against offender, s/he was attacked just "becouse"), not for assault against "gay", "woman", "afroamerican" etc. becouse in our opinion IT DOESNT REALLY MATTER.
|
On October 29 2011 04:49 Blasterion wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2011 04:46 semantics wrote:On October 28 2011 09:50 semantics wrote:On October 28 2011 09:33 travis wrote:On October 28 2011 09:25 turdburgler wrote:On October 28 2011 09:20 Candadar wrote:On October 28 2011 09:10 Odal wrote:On October 28 2011 09:09 semantics wrote:On October 28 2011 09:04 zakmaa wrote:
Violence is violence, because it was over his sexual orientation does make it more disturbing, but it should neither heighten nor lower his punishment. Having said that, I do believe that there should be police involvement and charges laid, however that won't happen unless the kid that was beaten tries to get that to happen. See it's statements like this that make me think TL is filled with 12 year olds Poll: How old are you?18 to 25 (25) 45% 25 or older (18) 32% 13 to 18 years old (9) 16% 1 - 12 years old (4) 7% 56 total votes Your vote: How old are you? (Vote): 1 - 12 years old
(Vote): 13 to 18 years old
(Vote): 18 to 25
(Vote): 25 or older
Just out of curiosity Arguing against someone's point by saying they must be children is not the most logical way to go about this. Yes, yes it is. Children, by default, have less experience with the world, experience with different worldviews, and their opinions are skewed. no they dont existing in the world doesnt give you more experience. think about what you just said It is rather fascinating to how people judge people as a group. Technically in the eyes of the law we are not all equal,there is no reason for us to be equal i do not expect a 5 foot tall man to dunk a basketball i would expect a 6 foot 4 man to, context is everything. This crime was committed by kids, do kids get the same punishment as adults? At which age do they suddenly obtain the ability to understand the gravity of their discourse? Yet if we differentiate children why not protected groups ie under hate crimes? The reason for children being lighter sentence is that they cannot quite understand morality and ethics in the same way a fully grown adult can and thus are unfit to be tried as an adult. So a heavier sentence for attacking a person based on them belonging to a group, homosexual or race et al is rational. With that, if you attacked a person based on them being part of a group you're attacking a group not a single person, which distinguishes your actions as a threat to the group not to the person and thus isn't treated the same. If i assault someone for being an ass hole i'm unlikely to assault another person, unless they are real jerks to me, if i assault a man because he is gay i am still likely to assault more people based on them being gay. The motivation is compeltely different for the same crime and motivation is always needed in violent crimes for proper sentencing. Why aren't children allowed to serve on juries? Same reason why i can invalidate an argument based on the age of a person without going into deep detail why it's wrong. We make laws based on generalizations but we sentence crimes based on the individual. I rather not make the same argument again and again only to be shot down by people going, "yeah i don't see it, all crimes are equal no special treatment here" Judge a crime for what the crime is not who it was done to.
That's not the way it works in the US. The victim matters here. If you'd like to file a complaint, I'm sure the congress would be willing to accept an email.
|
On October 29 2011 04:50 Chargelot wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2011 04:49 Blasterion wrote:On October 29 2011 04:46 semantics wrote:On October 28 2011 09:50 semantics wrote:On October 28 2011 09:33 travis wrote:On October 28 2011 09:25 turdburgler wrote:On October 28 2011 09:20 Candadar wrote:On October 28 2011 09:10 Odal wrote:On October 28 2011 09:09 semantics wrote:On October 28 2011 09:04 zakmaa wrote:
Violence is violence, because it was over his sexual orientation does make it more disturbing, but it should neither heighten nor lower his punishment. Having said that, I do believe that there should be police involvement and charges laid, however that won't happen unless the kid that was beaten tries to get that to happen. See it's statements like this that make me think TL is filled with 12 year olds Poll: How old are you?18 to 25 (25) 45% 25 or older (18) 32% 13 to 18 years old (9) 16% 1 - 12 years old (4) 7% 56 total votes Your vote: How old are you? (Vote): 1 - 12 years old
(Vote): 13 to 18 years old
(Vote): 18 to 25
(Vote): 25 or older
Just out of curiosity Arguing against someone's point by saying they must be children is not the most logical way to go about this. Yes, yes it is. Children, by default, have less experience with the world, experience with different worldviews, and their opinions are skewed. no they dont existing in the world doesnt give you more experience. think about what you just said It is rather fascinating to how people judge people as a group. Technically in the eyes of the law we are not all equal,there is no reason for us to be equal i do not expect a 5 foot tall man to dunk a basketball i would expect a 6 foot 4 man to, context is everything. This crime was committed by kids, do kids get the same punishment as adults? At which age do they suddenly obtain the ability to understand the gravity of their discourse? Yet if we differentiate children why not protected groups ie under hate crimes? The reason for children being lighter sentence is that they cannot quite understand morality and ethics in the same way a fully grown adult can and thus are unfit to be tried as an adult. So a heavier sentence for attacking a person based on them belonging to a group, homosexual or race et al is rational. With that, if you attacked a person based on them being part of a group you're attacking a group not a single person, which distinguishes your actions as a threat to the group not to the person and thus isn't treated the same. If i assault someone for being an ass hole i'm unlikely to assault another person, unless they are real jerks to me, if i assault a man because he is gay i am still likely to assault more people based on them being gay. The motivation is compeltely different for the same crime and motivation is always needed in violent crimes for proper sentencing. Why aren't children allowed to serve on juries? Same reason why i can invalidate an argument based on the age of a person without going into deep detail why it's wrong. We make laws based on generalizations but we sentence crimes based on the individual. I rather not make the same argument again and again only to be shot down by people going, "yeah i don't see it, all crimes are equal no special treatment here" Judge a crime for what the crime is not who it was done to. That's not the way it works in the US. The victim matters here. If you'd like to file a complaint, I'm sure the congress would be willing to accept an email.
He apparently doesn't understand morality and ethics, the majority of judicial systems work on not only finding guilt but motivation. If a man steals a loaf of bread because he will die if he does not eat, does that make him the same as the man who steals a loaf of bread just becuase he could and does that man equal the same as the man who stole a loaf of bread because he wanted to resell it for money?
No they are all unique and are sentenced based on their dispositions.
A woman was near death from a special kind of cancer. There was one drug that the doctors thought might save her. It was a form of radium that a druggist in the same town had recently discovered. The drug was expensive to make, but the druggist was charging ten times what the drug cost him to produce. He paid $200 for the radium and charged $2,000 for a small dose of the drug. The sick woman's husband, Heinz, went to everyone he knew to borrow the money, but he could only get together about $1,000 which is half of what it cost. He told the druggist that his wife was dying and asked him to sell it cheaper or let him pay later. But the druggist said: "No, I discovered the drug and I'm going to make money from it." So Heinz got desperate and broke into the man's store to steal the drug for his wife.
Should Heinz have broken into the store to steal the drug for his wife? Why or why not?
Yes heinz did the right thing stealing the drug to save his wife from death, this is only upon condition that no one else in the area needed the drug at which point both have the right to the drug. He is in the right and in the wrong, he did go to the druggist and tried to work out a payment plan but the druggist said no. Hienz could not wait for the money as his wife's condition is time sensitive and so putting human life above that of money is correct. He is in the wrong for stealing it, and he should try to make right by the druggist by paying him the cost of making the drug plus any damage that occurred during the theft. But the druggist is exploiting human suffering for extreme profit and should not be compensated for his originally demanded 2000 as he was clear in that he would not chose to help save a human life and take the money later.
|
He apparently doesn't understand morality and ethics, the majority of judicial systems work on not only finding guilt but motivation.
Well if you find the beating fat guy becouse of him being fat better than beating homesexual person becouse of being gay, I find this as a really horrible moral relativity.
|
On October 29 2011 05:08 hitthat wrote:Show nested quote +
He apparently doesn't understand morality and ethics, the majority of judicial systems work on not only finding guilt but motivation.
Well if you find the beating fat guy becouse of him being fat better than beating homesexual person becouse of being gay, I find this as a really horrible moral relativity.
I'm confused. When did he say that?
|
On October 29 2011 05:08 hitthat wrote:Show nested quote +
He apparently doesn't understand morality and ethics, the majority of judicial systems work on not only finding guilt but motivation.
Well if you find the beating fat guy becouse of him being fat better than beating homesexual person becouse of being gay, I find this as a really horrible moral relativity.
it's not better. however there isn't a pattern of violence against fat people that needs to be discouraged is there?
|
On October 29 2011 04:48 Velocirapture wrote:
This thread is too full of people who use their poor reading comprehension to bolster their 'set in stone' misconceptions (im lookin at you WhiteDog). The amount of non-sequitur posts would be bearable if they didnt cherry pick words out of context from good posts to push their agenda.
You've got a really odd definition of 'agenda' if you think such a thing involves discussing things like this on a video game forum.
People are really just trying to get to the bottom of the implications in our definition of what a hate crime is.
Ultimately it boils down to a conflict between some group (sexual orientation, religion, gender, race, whatever) wanting to be treated the same by the majority of society, while simultaneously wanting extra protection when they get targeted for discrimination by the minority of society.
And that's just the way it is.
|
On October 29 2011 05:08 hitthat wrote:Show nested quote +
He apparently doesn't understand morality and ethics, the majority of judicial systems work on not only finding guilt but motivation.
Well if you find the beating fat guy becouse of him being fat better than beating homesexual person becouse of being gay, I find this as a really horrible moral relativity.
In the US depending on state if you can prove that the fat guy was beat up becuase he was fat you can charge him with a hate crime, which is not a crime in itself it is a modifier to a crime. It's harder on violent crimes, but discrimination/harassment in say a work place it's actually very much the same. So i don't get what you're trying to say becuase it's not based in US law.
|
On October 29 2011 05:09 Chargelot wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2011 05:08 hitthat wrote:
He apparently doesn't understand morality and ethics, the majority of judicial systems work on not only finding guilt but motivation.
Well if you find the beating fat guy becouse of him being fat better than beating homesexual person becouse of being gay, I find this as a really horrible moral relativity. I'm confused. When did he say that?
becouse it's all we are talking about, maybe just that "starcraft player" example is not really good.
And once again I want to remind that we are not talking about legal solutions but rules.
EDIT: ok, i must clarify my last sentence- this guy should be punished acording to local law. Is this fair it's just another thing.
|
On October 29 2011 05:10 Bibdy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2011 04:48 Velocirapture wrote:
This thread is too full of people who use their poor reading comprehension to bolster their 'set in stone' misconceptions (im lookin at you WhiteDog). The amount of non-sequitur posts would be bearable if they didnt cherry pick words out of context from good posts to push their agenda. You've got a really odd definition of 'agenda' if you think such a thing involves discussing things like this on a video game forum. People are really just trying to get to the bottom of the implications in our definition of what a hate crime is. Ultimately it boils down to a conflict between some group (sexual orientation, religion, gender, race, whatever) wanting to be treated the same by the majority of society, while simultaneously wanting extra protection when they get targeted for discrimination by the minority of society. And that's just the way it is.
The rational is quite easy
If i attack a person because he is a part of a group, then there is no reason why i wouldn't attack more people that belong to that group.
If i attack a person for being that person then my attacks would logically stop at that person.
That is the clear difference. It's easier to prove that a person did something because they were black or a midget or homosexual then it is to say becuase he was a toyota car owner. And so protected groups are just the easier groups of hate crimes to identify.
And again a hate crime isn't a crime in itself it is a modifier to an excising crime that allows the judge to make much harsher sentencing.
|
On October 28 2011 08:05 WTFZerg wrote:
I can kick someone out of my privately owned restaurant for whatever I want, so bad example.
Not in the US you can't. Title II of the Civil rights act of 1964 outlaws racial discrimination in places of public accommodations, including restaurants.
|
On October 29 2011 05:15 semantics wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2011 05:10 Bibdy wrote:On October 29 2011 04:48 Velocirapture wrote:
This thread is too full of people who use their poor reading comprehension to bolster their 'set in stone' misconceptions (im lookin at you WhiteDog). The amount of non-sequitur posts would be bearable if they didnt cherry pick words out of context from good posts to push their agenda. You've got a really odd definition of 'agenda' if you think such a thing involves discussing things like this on a video game forum. People are really just trying to get to the bottom of the implications in our definition of what a hate crime is. Ultimately it boils down to a conflict between some group (sexual orientation, religion, gender, race, whatever) wanting to be treated the same by the majority of society, while simultaneously wanting extra protection when they get targeted for discrimination by the minority of society. And that's just the way it is. The rational is quite easy If i attack a person because he is a part of a group, then there is no reason why i wouldn't attack more people that belong to that group. If i attack a person for being that person then my attacks would logically stop at that person. That is the clear difference. It's easier to prove that a person did something because they were black or a midget or homosexual then it is to say becuase he was a toyota car owner. And so protected groups are just the easier groups of hate crimes to identify. And again a hate crime isn't a crime in itself it is a modifier to an excising crime that allows the judge to make much harsher sentencing.
If you attack a fat person you are likely to attack other fat people but fat people are not offered the same kind of protection as gay people
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
