I'm a liberal: conservatives are evil
I'm a conservative: liberals are evil
I'm a liberal: conservatives aren't evil
I'm a conservative: liberals aren't evil
Ban Morality Games
See, just asking a question that could be interpreted so many ways is simply trying to set me up. Clarify your parameters and we can have a discussion, but I'm not going to get in this game you're trying to play without knowing what the rules are.
Last edited by faithful_servant; 02-26-15 at 02:42 PM.
Our nation has not always lived up to its ideals, yet those ideals have never ceased to guide us. They expose our flaws, and lead us to mend them. We are the beneficiaries of the work of the generations before us and it is each generation's responsibility to continue that work. - Laura Bush
So in your example, if you're Jewish, and your son was killed because he was Jewish, if you live nearby it's a rational response to believe you or other members of your family are at greater risk than any random member of the community because you or your family members are also Jewish.
If my post offends you, I deeply Apple-O-Jize.
Horse sense is the thing a horse has which keeps it from betting on people. ~W.C. Fields
Nobody is inherently evil because of their political bent. I don't think they're evil, I think they are simply misguided.
It's clear that you do, and I'm placing no value judgement on whether you do or don't, I'm simply asking for a reasoned justification why the criminal justice system needs to accommodate the ideas of hate crimes when:
- Hate being a moral issue, now criminal justice is legislating morality
- The only difference between a particular crime and the hate version of that crime is alleged motivation, an indeterminate judgement conclusion and not factual (at least in most cases)
- The only difference between a particular crime and the hate version of that crime is the amount of violence and damage
- The level of punishment of the non-hate crime version can easily handle pushing those that inflict greater violence
- Hate crimes denote protected classes, which in itself is discriminatory at the conceptual level
- The creation and designation of some crimes to be hate crimes is little more than playing to psychological appeasement of some
(Did I miss any?)
The position being argued is that the definition and existence of hate crimes currently remains unjustified, at least based on the posting in this forum to date.
Nancy Pelosi said: “We have to pass it, to find out what’s in it.” A Doctor called to a radio show & said: "That's the definition of a stool sample"
"Under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket," Barack Obama January 2008
We personally know a victim of a hate crime, and there is a difference. He is a friend of my wife's and has dark skin. He was attacked by a crazed knife wielding maniac as he sat in a waiting area of a train station, and the motive was that he looked foreign - "This is my (expletive) country. I will kill you." It's changed him and his family in ways that a random crime of violence doesn't because the motive was NOT a random one - he was targeted because of the color of his skin, which is shared by his wife and children. They have a (perceived at least) target on their backs that others who aren't dark skinned simply don't have. AND they have the more generalized fear of random violence.
And you also need to at least recognize lynching of blacks in the South had as part of the motive the goal of terrorizing blacks. Whites in Alabama simply didn't need to fear being lynched - they were white and the KKK and other white supremacists didn't target whites, or if they did target whites, it was ONLY those whites who sympathized with blacks - e.g. the civil rights workers killed in Mississippi. Those crimes were simply different than random attacks or even random murders - the purpose was to terrorize a segment of the population. They would be obvious 'hate crimes' in the current era.