1. look at your post on this page, that's when you start debating me at the top of the page
2. When did I say it's ok to sometimes charge motivation crimes on someone and when it's not, I do state the motivation can play a role in how heinous a crime is and that should effect punishment.
3.) You stated we should charge someone on hate crime charges that is stating that it's ok to charge some one with crimes of motivation.
4,) Well you effectively led me to that conclusion by refusing to answer the question if attacking someone based on political thought is a hate crime or not. This isn't a strawman this is asking you what you think and you saying "I don't know know enough to answer"
5.) My description of the law is the definition I showed you. But ok then I guess you don't think hitting a girl because you hate ugly people isn't a form of prejudice
6.) I'm asking your own personal interpretation of where the line starts and ends and your suggesting that you don't know and that it's up to judges. Which then again shows the confusion of the law.
7.) The line where murder starts is when someone kills someone with the intent to kill the person. That's where it starts that's where it ends.
8.) Federal laws don't vary from areas. This is ridiculous
9.) ... Ok so I guess the Bosnians upset about the lack of hate crime charges isn't a direct result of the policy
10) " no it simply shows people will value thier opinions over facts and laws. Any division is created by subjective opinions not law." Your quote
11.) No I just over generalized my opinion this is not debatable your just trying to pinpoint reasons to try to disagree with an accidental over generalization then the actual point of the statement And still, I never admitted to charging people based on motivation but rather admitted that motivation plays a role in how bad a crime is.
12.) The minute you said to charge someone on hate crime charges is the minute you suggest we should create motivation as a crime. I was asking you if you would agree that motivation should not be a crime but the solely the act should be the crime
13.) It will cause and has caused more division talking about women's rights and gay rights shows no factual refutation of this. Feelings are a direct reflection of policy. It's not just an "opinion".
14.) That's like saying we should accept the NSA spying because it's the new law and if you disagree with that it's just a subjective opinion. Which is completely outrageous to any educated constitutional loving person.
15.) I'm glad an educated man of your statue is so ready to disagree with someone based on argument rather then actually discuss and learn together.
1.) so you think like 5 posts into the conversation i started debating? LOL nope just pointed out facts and how your statments didnt fit.
2.)easy you said you just said it again, you support it in case but not really for hate crimes
3.) no its not lol a crime is committed first, motivation matters AFTER the crime is committed
4.) repeating this lie wont make it true, i never refused to answer, in fact i answer every time
your strawman is THIS "attacking someone based on political thought is not a form of prejudice?"
never said that in any way, thats why it failed
5.) BOOM! and there you have it ANOTHER strawman i never said or even suggested lol
hate crime is not ANY and ALL Prejudice. Thank you for proving you dont understand what hate crime is
6.) its not an opinion that i can thats why your claims are failing and there is no confusion
7.) 100% false, i can have the intent to kill somebody and it not be murder if its self defense. Are you from the us?
8.) good thing thats not what i said. ANOTHER failed straw man . . I said "laws also have state standards that coincide with them at times and add to them."
9.) what policy? but no its a result of thier feelings.
10.) correct thats my qoute about . . . . wait for it . . . wait for it . . . your example lol
11.) yes which means you stated wrong compared to your actual opinion. Thats what "over generalization means" thank you for proving it
12.) false since thats not what it does, thank you again for understanding you dont know what hate crime is, without a original crime FIRST there is not hate crime.
13.) actually it does, it shows the law didnt create the division but feelings and bigotry did. The law actually made us all more equal. THat just hurt peoples feelings.
14.) i agree that would be outrageous good thing thats nothing like equal rights and inst analogous on any level what so ever. Like i said my statments reflect the examples not stuff you want to make up.
15.) what disagreement, what argument you keep repeating this but ill i did is point out a fact and you went to left filed and everywhere else with it. But please try another deflection and straw man since your others seemed to work so well.
