• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Liberals and Conservatives: Are adherents of the rival ideology evil?

Well?

  • I'm a liberal: conservatives are evil

    Votes: 2 4.0%
  • I'm a conservative: liberals are evil

    Votes: 3 6.0%
  • I'm a liberal: conservatives aren't evil

    Votes: 20 40.0%
  • I'm a conservative: liberals aren't evil

    Votes: 11 22.0%
  • Ban Morality Games

    Votes: 14 28.0%

  • Total voters
    50
I never defended nazism. I'm defending the nuances of the human mind.
I don't claim to know what went on every single individual nazis soldiers mind. Like you are claiming.



I have never claimed any such thing and I defy you to post a comment where I said that.

But OTOH I have never defended any NAZIs.
The NAZIs chose to become NAZIs and they deserve whatever price that they paid. :roll:
 
You did say it was isolated. You said my examples were isolated. In other words, you changed your mind when I called your post out for the garbage that it was.

Some of your examples were isolated. I wasn't going to address each one.

My point still stands. There is a distinction that separates hate crimes from other crimes.
 
Some of your examples were isolated. I wasn't going to address each one.

My point still stands. There is a distinction that separates hate crimes from other crimes.

None of my examples were isolated. You said that hate crimes impact the community more than non-hate crimes. I showed you how incorrect you were. ALL crimes impact the community and it's disingenuous and childish to say otherwise to attempt to advance your talking point.
 
I have never claimed any such thing and I defy you to post a comment where I said that.

But OTOH I have never defended any NAZIs.

My question to you is do you choose to not contemplate that possibility of a nazi soldier who may not have liked what he was doing because there is no intellectual logical reason to do so or because you want to stand on principal. I.e "It was a bad thing so I want bother to venture into that possibility.

If you can accept human mind is complex that you also have to accept that people who do bad things may do things for a wide variety of reasons.

Some children caught up with bad apples may partake in things they don't feel comfortable with doing but they do anyway because of peer pressure.

That is a real thing.
 
None of my examples were isolated. You said that hate crimes impact the community more than non-hate crimes. I showed you how incorrect you were. ALL crimes impact the community and it's disingenuous and childish to say otherwise to attempt to advance your talking point.

Yes they were.

Many of your examples are examples are opportunists criminals.

All crimes do not impact communities the same way. You are disingenuous to suggest that.

A crime committed in a dark back alley simply because the opportunity presented it's self is not going to effect a community 10 miles down the road.

However that same crime done because the person is Gay will effect all gays because they all are gay and thus are a potential victims no matter were they are.

Again that is the distinction.

And that is why hate crimes actually exists and your refutation against Hate crime statutes existing never hold any water.
 
Yes they were.

Many of your examples are examples are opportunists criminals.

All crimes do not impact communities the same way. You are disingenuous to suggest that.

A crime committed in a dark back alley simply because the opportunity presented it's self is not going to effect a community 10 miles down the road.

However that same crime done because the person is Gay will effect all gays because they all are gay and thus are a potential victims no matter were they are.

Again that is the distinction.

And that is why hate crimes actually exists and your refutation against Hate crime statutes existing never hold any water.

Oh I get it now. It's better if your daughter and grandchildren are slaughtered by an opportunist criminal. And if there are random home invasions that result in death and they're being committed by opportunist criminals, you'll sleep like a baby in spite of that. Of course.

Ugh, I have to stop reading you before I hurl all over my keyboard.
 
Oh I get it now. It's better if your daughter and grandchildren are slaughtered by an opportunist criminal. Of course.

Ugh, I have to stop reading you before I hurl all over my keyboard.



Oh, I'm sorry you can't manage a debate without using a strawman fallacy.

Go ahead hurl and then perhaps brush up on your debating tactics. Because they are piss poor.
 
Easy answer.

Texas executes man in race-motivated dragging death | Reuters

(Reuters) - Texas executed a white supremacist on Wednesday convicted of helping to kill a black man by dragging him behind a truck in what some call the most notorious race crime of the post-Civil Rights era.

Lawrence Russell Brewer, 44, was convicted of capital murder along with two other men also found guilty of taking part in the kidnapping and slaying of James Byrd Jr. in 1998.

Again, clearly dragging a man behind a truck is a heinous crime, and charged with murder, he'll serve life, or he'll be executed (Texas after all), which he richly deserves.

What's the point in the hate crime murder? You gonna execute him 2 times?

Or is it to make sure that demands of the black community are met to have such a crime?

I'm sure that had he dragged to death a white man behind his truck, that he'd have gotten some sort of hate crime charge. Yeah, right.

So in this case, how is it not that this hate crime law is fundamentally racist and discriminatory? It's clearly giving preferential, protected class status, to someone of a particular race, is it not?
 
Crimes are always judged by the damage they inflict. Hate crimes inflict more damage.

Maybe true, maybe not. That still doesn't go far in justifying the need for a special hate statues, nor the need for special protected classes in the shadow of those statues, when the normal statues are more than adequate to address the legal needs.
 
Crimes are always judged by the damage they inflict. Hate crimes inflict more damage.

I'll agree with you that the punishment for a crime is proportional to the damage the crime inflicts.
I'm less convinced that the crime changes, depending on how much or severe the damage.
 
That is a fine box.

The box is made from and old persimmon tree felled by beavers and the inlay is polished dodo bird beak.
 
My question to you is do you choose to not contemplate that possibility of a nazi soldier who may not have liked what he was doing
because there is no intellectual logical reason to do so or because you want to stand on principal. I.e "It was a bad thing so I want bother to venture into that possibility.

If you can accept human mind is complex that you also have to accept that people who do bad things may do things for a wide variety of reasons.

Some children caught up with bad apples may partake in things they don't feel comfortable with doing but they do anyway because of peer pressure.

That is a real thing.



People became NAZIs because they wanted to become NAZIs. If you want to try to make excuses for them that's your problem.

I won't be helping you with that wasted effort.
 
You said:



So, do you think all members of the group "NAZIs" were evil or were some good?

Here's the problem with that statement: Are you talking about every German who was a National Socialist Party member, every soldier wearing a German uniform, every German (soldier or not) who adhered to all of the National Socialist Party's beliefs or anyone today who willingly and with full agreement to NAZI beliefs wears NAZI ink??

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:
If I had a gay son, which I might considering I have 3 sons, and he is killed, it won't be any more horrific that he's killed because he's gay than it would be for any reason. See, I think crimes are horrific on their own. I guess the "majority" thinks crimes aren't horrific on their own.

That's all true, but I do see a distinction between a random crime of violence and a 'hate' crime. In short, the latter is a form of domestic terrorism, and has the potential at least to instill fear in people who share characteristics of the victim that doesn't happen if the victim was random. That is in fact sometimes the purpose of some 'hate' crimes.

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.
 
Again, clearly dragging a man behind a truck is a heinous crime, and charged with murder, he'll serve life, or he'll be executed (Texas after all), which he richly deserves.

What's the point in the hate crime murder? You gonna execute him 2 times?

Or is it to make sure that demands of the black community are met to have such a crime?

I'm sure that had he dragged to death a white man behind his truck, that he'd have gotten some sort of hate crime charge. Yeah, right.

So in this case, how is it not that this hate crime law is fundamentally racist and discriminatory? It's clearly giving preferential, protected class status, to someone of a particular race, is it not?

LOL. That's a good one. Granted, a rather morbid subject, but still, always good to inject a bit a humor. Thanks.


Indeed. My point exactly. It's the crime, not the motivation, yet all these hate crimes are geared about the motivation, as another poster pointed out (thanks), which is far less compelling when presented than the physical evidence. It raises all kinds of questions as to 'how did you know that this was the defendant's motivation' for example, and how can one person really know another person's motivation? We have mind reading equipment now?


You made 2 points- I answered 1with a clear case of how it was determined to be a hate crime
As to supporting hate crime legislation- I do.
 
That's all true, but I do see a distinction between a random crime of violence and a 'hate' crime. In short, the latter is a form of domestic terrorism, and has the potential at least to instill fear in people who share characteristics of the victim that doesn't happen if the victim was random. That is in fact sometimes the purpose of some 'hate' crimes.

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 I'm Jewish, and my son is killed because of some stranger randomly mowing him with a gun down for his car, I'll be afraid of being randomly mowed down for my car by some stranger.
 
The box is made from and old persimmon tree felled by beavers and the inlay is polished dodo bird beak.

Dodo beak is powerful and combine it with persimmon downed by beaver's tooth! Strong, strong magic!
 
Nobody is inherently evil because of their political bent. I don't think they're evil, I think they are simply misguided.
 
You made 2 points- I answered 1with a clear case of how it was determined to be a hate crime
As to supporting hate crime legislation- I do.

True you did #1.

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.
 
If I'm Jewish, and my son is killed because of some stranger randomly mowing him with a gun down for his car, I'll be afraid of being randomly mowed down for my car by some stranger.

Yes, of course, but the point is that fear of randomly being mowed down for your car is a generalized fear shared by EVERYONE in your community. But if he's killed because he's Jewish, the crime victim isn't random at all - the victim was chosen because he's Jewish, and the only people who will fear similar violence are other Jews. Your Christian neighbors don't need to worry about it because they're not Jews.

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.
 
I believe there's a little evil in all of us.
 
I believe there's a little evil in all of us.

Y4TrI.gif


67159734d1389158365-emoticons-forum-needs-evilhands.gif
 
I believe there's a little evil in all of us.

I somewhat,to a whole lot, agree -depending on the individual. I just read where Stephen Hawkin said that his wish for humanity is that they trade in their violent nature for empathy. Noooot gooonnnna happen.

Evil is what it is, but I usually associate with the word "control". Whether it be to control one's (or everybody's) mind, body, or the time of death.
 
I wouldn't go so far as to broadly categorize a large swatch of the population as “evil”, just because of matters of ideology.

But I would say that to the degree which political ideology aligns with good and evil, liberalism can easily and clearly be seen as tending to align more with with evil.

  • It is the ideology that supported and defended slavery, “Jim Crow” laws, and segregation against black Americans, until it figured out how to exploit this demographic to their detriment, for political gain.
  • It is the ideology that embraces sexual immorality.
  • It is the ideology that is most favorable to the abuse of harmful drugs.
  • It is the ideology that defends the senseless slaughter of the very most innocent and defenseless of all human beings.
  • It is the ideology that tends more to side with criminals, against honest, law-abiding citizens.
  • It is the ideology that encourages and rewards idleness failure, and parasitism, while punishing and discouraging success, productivity, and self-reliance.
  • It is the ideology that traitorously takes the side of foreign criminals who are invading this nation; against the side of the American people.
 
Back
Top Bottom