• 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
akrunner88 said:
The motivations against hate crime legislation don't make sense to me. We assign levels of motivations and classifications for every crime under the sun, yet hate crimes somehow don't deserve a category?
Click to expand...

1st amendment – In Canada we have hate speech laws- Does not seem to be a problem up here.
 
Zinthaniel said:
When crimes are assessed by law enforcement, i.e Detectives. A hate crime provides entirely different implications. It is an entirely different crime in of it's self.

The crime was done solely to attack someone because of their immutable characteristic. The vast majority of these crimes are far more violent than any other crime relative to it's form. I.e mugging someone because they are white will be fueled by hatred. The mugging will be more violent - the mugger will persist longer in the beating than he would if he simply wanted to steal and then flee. They also establish further intent to harm others of that same class.

That is why they have a special status.
Click to expand...

I see this as a fine description of what a hate crime is, and how hate crime laws are written and how they tend to operate, but not a justification of why they should exist.

You say so yourself that often those types of crimes are far more violent. Isn't that more sufficient to charge them with the maximum punishment for the crime?

akrunner88 said:
It all comes down to motivation. I see no reason why we shouldn't recognize the motives for a crime. If you beat someone to a pulp because you want to steal his car, vs. beating someone to a pulp because they are gay, the motivations are different. We prosecute all sorts of crimes based on motivation. This is nothing new.

No one should suffer criminal acts against them simply for being and that is what hate crimes address, and why the punishment for such crimes is generally higher.
Click to expand...

The motivation. So now the criminal justice system is tasked with seeing into a person's brain and ferret out something as obscure as 'motivation' behind the crime, when they have the physical evidence of the violence of the crime? Why are we wasting time on this peering into people's heads and determining motivation? Why aren't we charging on the easily to discern physical evidence as to the violence of the crime instead?

Again, I see the hate crime statutes as little more than currying favor of a small-ish segment of the population, promoting that population to protected class, from which even further, and also probably equally unjustified, concession are going to be extracted from the public.

What happened to equal treatment under the law? Do not even having any protected classes such as this erode this fundamental concept?
 
tres borrachos said:
"Hate crime". That always makes me pause. As opposed to.....I adore you crime?

If one of my loved ones is killed, his death is no more horrific if he is killed by someone who hates white men than if he is killed by someone who wants to take his care, wants to get into a gang, wants to piss off his ex-girlfriend, or just because he wants to know what it's like to kill someone.
Click to expand...

You are saying if you had a gay son, you would be just as outraged if he was randomly shot in the parking lot for his car than if he was shot because he was gay? You're definitely a minority then.
 
tres borrachos said:
"Hate crime". That always makes me pause. As opposed to.....I adore you crime?
Click to expand...
LOL. That's a good one. Granted, a rather morbid subject, but still, always good to inject a bit a humor. Thanks.
tres borrachos said:
If one of my loved ones is killed, his death is no more horrific if he is killed by someone who hates white men than if he is killed by someone who wants to take his care, wants to get into a gang, wants to piss off his ex-girlfriend, or just because he wants to know what it's like to kill someone.
Click to expand...

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?
 
eohrnberger said:
I see this as a fine description of what a hate crime is, and how hate crime laws are written and how they tend to operate, but not a justification of why they should exist.

You say so yourself that often those types of crimes are far more violent. Isn't that more sufficient to charge them with the maximum punishment for the crime?
Click to expand...

hate crime laws are messages sent to those have have extreme beliefs that would otherwise harm entire communities if not abated. Not just unfortunate individuals that are in the wrong place at the wrong time. Someone who is out to harm only white people is a threat to large pool of potential victims. In this instance, if you are white, your not safe no matter where you are or who you are because this person is actively seeking you out to harm you. And the color of you skin is the reason.

These distinctions are what create the need for these laws. They take into account the action and the terror inflicted on more than just their victim. Someone is killed because they are gay and you have a whole community that is up in flames. Worried if they will be next. The psychological and it's wide spread effect adds onto the crime.

The point is to provide a very real message. Hate crimes are simply more dangerous. We know that. There is precedence for what happens when someone's hateful actions against immutable characteristics goes unchecked.
 
Last edited:
akrunner88 said:
You are saying if you had a gay son, you would be just as outraged if he was randomly shot in the parking lot for his car than if he was shot because he was gay? You're definitely a minority then.
Click to expand...

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.

I suppose a man whose son is shot because someone wants to steal his car can sit at his son's funeral and smile and say "Well, at least he was killed for his car and not because he's gay. That makes it much better. Let's go to the party now Linda!"

WTF?
 
Zinthaniel said:
Some Nazi soldiers were simply stuck between a rock and a hard place. They had no choice but to follow orders.

That is typical of any militia. Many soldier may disagree with the objective
however they can not simply disobey orders.
Click to expand...
I am sure there were some Nazi soldiers who were sickened by the atrocities they had to commit. Humans are truly, TRULY, not as black and white as you want to paint them as.
Click to expand...



This defense was famously thrown out at the Nuremberg trials.
 
tres borrachos said:
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
Click to expand...

If your son is killed simply because a robbery went wrong. That is horrible. A robbery that happened simply because you son happened to be in the wrong place.

And this may be subjective, however, yeah I do think there is extra level of cruelty if you son was sought out and followed and then killed for something about him that he had no control over.

There is extra hate there. Usually in a hate crime they want the victim to suffer. To feel the pain. Because they HATE them . It's terrible way to die and it's terrible thing to have to deal with as a family member of someone who was taken because of that kind of hate.
 
Zinthaniel said:
hate crime laws are messages sent to those have have extreme beliefs that would otherwise harm entire communities if not abated. Not just unfortunate individuals that are in the wrong place at the wrong time. Someone who is out to harm only white people is a threat to large pool of potential victims. In this instance, if you are white, your not safe no matter where you are or who you are because this person is actively seeking you out to harm you. And the color of you skin is the reason.

These distinctions are what create the need for these laws. They take into account the action and the terror inflicted on more than just their victim. Someone is killed because they are gay and you have a whole community that is up in flames. Worried if they will be next. The psychological and it's wide spread effect adds onto the crime.

The point is to provide a very real message. Hate crimes are simply more dangerous. We know that. There is precedence for what happens when someone's hateful actions against immutable characteristics goes unchecked.
Click to expand...

You make my point for me.

'messages', 'psychological', these are now the foundations on which the criminal statues are built? Not what you can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt? Not physical evidence? Not forensic evidence?

When are those that are easily intimidated going to get their protected class, and those that are gregarious or a tad overbearing, or perhaps just taller in stature, be charged with 'being intimidating' or 'having intimidating' thoughts?

(Yeah OK, I'll admit up front that this is a bit of a stretch, but still, for the sake of argument . . . . )
 
Zinthaniel said:
If you son is killed simply because a robbery went wrong. That is horrible. A robbery that happened simply because you son happened to be in the wrong place.

And this may be subjective, however, yeah I do think there is extra level of cruelty if you son was sought out and followed and then killed for something about him that he had no control over.

There is extra hate there. Usually in a hate crime they want the victim to suffer. To feel the pain. Because they HATE them . It terrible way to die and it's terrible thing to have to deal with as a family of someone who lost a loved one to that kind of hate.
Click to expand...

Unlike the guy who rapes and kills a young mother and 2 of children in cold blood because he doesn't hate them, right? Or the woman who shoots the old neighbor to get drug money, because she loves her, right? Or how about the guy who rapes and strangles the young girl he followed in the Target store who went there for wrapping paper for her boyfriend's birthday present - he just adored her, right?

And the loves ones of those people, they should feel so much better because these were crimes of love.
 
tres borrachos said:
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.

I suppose a man whose son is shot because someone wants to steal his car can sit at his son's funeral and smile and say "Well, at least he was killed for his car and not because he's gay. That makes it much better. Let's go to the party now Linda!"
Click to expand...





WTF?
Click to expand...



Anyone can suppose a lot of things but that doesn't mean that any of them ever have or ever will happen. :roll:
 
Zinthaniel said:
If your son is killed simply because a robbery went wrong. That is horrible. A robbery that happened simply because you son happened to be in the wrong place.

And this may be subjective, however, yeah I do think there is extra level of cruelty if you son was sought out and followed and then killed for something about him that he had no control over.

There is extra hate there. Usually in a hate crime they want the victim to suffer. To feel the pain. Because they HATE them . It's terrible way to die and it's terrible thing to have to deal with as a family member of someone who was taken because of that kind of hate.
Click to expand...

Hating someone or not, isn't that a moral issue? Do you care that one person hates another, as long as they don't act on it?

So aren't hate crimes an attempt to legislate morality? Isn't that something many have already admitted the legal system is ill-equipped to do, legislate morality?
 
shrubnose said:
Anyone can suppose a lot of things but that doesn't mean that any of them ever have or ever will happen. :roll:
Click to expand...

Meaning you want one of my sons to be killed right after he announces he's gay so I can test my theory?
 
tres borrachos said:
Unlike the guy who rapes and kills a young mother and 2 of children in cold blood because he doesn't hate them, right? Or the woman who shoots the old neighbor to get drug money, because she loves her, right? Or how about the guy who rapes and strangles the young girl he followed in the Target store who went there for wrapping paper for her boyfriend's birthday present - he just adored her, right?

And the loves ones of those people, they should feel so much better because these were crimes of love.
Click to expand...

You're putting words in my mouth.

Hate crimes take into an account the desire to harm an entire community as well.

You examples are isolated. A hate crime isn't.

Hate crime is still defined by the viciousness and conviction in which they are committed. They are, almost invariably, always more violent and sadistic.

These distinctions separate them from opportunist or isolated attacks.
 
eohrnberger said:
Hating someone or not, isn't that a moral issue? Do you care that one person hates another, as long as they don't act on it?

So aren't hate crimes an attempt to legislate morality? Isn't that something many have already admitted the legal system is ill-equipped to do, legislate morality?
Click to expand...


If you hate is turned into violent action. And it's evident either by your admission or the nature of your crime then it's addressed as such.
 
shrubnose said:
[/COLOR][/B]



It didn't stop them from dying with a noose around their neck.

Why do want to defend NAZIs?
Click to expand...

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.
 
tres borrachos said:
Meaning you want one of my sons to be killed right after he announces he's gay so I can test my theory?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...



Those are your thoughts and words, not mine.

Deal with it. :roll:




"Tolerance is giving to every other human being every right that you claim for yourself." ~ Robert Green Ingersoll
 
eohrnberger said:
You make my point for me.

'messages', 'psychological', these are now the foundations on which the criminal statues are built? Not what you can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt? Not physical evidence? Not forensic evidence?

When are those that are easily intimidated going to get their protected class, and those that are gregarious or a tad overbearing, or perhaps just taller in stature, be charged with 'being intimidating' or 'having intimidating' thoughts?

(Yeah OK, I'll admit up front that this is a bit of a stretch, but still, for the sake of argument . . . . )
Click to expand...

Crimes are always judged by the damage they inflict. Hate crimes inflict more damage.
 
Zinthaniel said:
You're putting words in my mouth.

Hate crimes take into an account the desire to harm an entire community as well.

You examples are isolated. A hate crime isn't.

Hate crime is still defined by the viciousness and conviction in which they are committed. They are, almost invariably, always more violent and sadistic.

These distinctions separate them from opportunist or isolated attacks.
Click to expand...

Oh, so the community isn't impacted by random acts of violence? Really?

Yes, a man can break into bedrooms on a college campus and rape and slaughter sorority sisters, but that's isolated. No other women would have any reason to fear. Is that right? A man can break into a woman's house in the middle of the night, and rape and beat her to death, but life goes on as normal for all of the other housewives the next day, and it's all no big deal. A 5 year old can get snatched from her front yard by a car driven by a man who rapes and stabs her to death, and no other parent of a kid feels any impact from that at all, and all mothers just let their kids play unsupervised forever. Hell, those 5 year olds can just take care of themselves!

This has to be a joke.
 
eohrnberger said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
tres borrachos said:
Oh, so the community isn't impacted by random acts of violence? Really?
Click to expand...

It's not a joke.

If a man is raping women because he hates them that is a hate crime and can be charged as such. And is, often times.

I never said that was isolated.

If a housewife is attacked in a alley, for instance, in some obscure part of town. The community from which she comes will be saddened but the reality is they won't feel any danger in that. Because not many of them will be planning on walking down alleys alone.

However if they housewife is murdered in an obscure alley because she is white then - no matter where you may be if you are white you feel in danger.

That is the distinction whether you can grasp that or not.
 
Zinthaniel said:
It's not a joke.

If a man is raping women because he hates them that is a hate crime and can be charged as such. And is, often times.

I never said that was isolated.

If a housewife is attacked in a alley, for instance, in some obscure part of town. The community from which she comes will be saddened but the reality is they won't feel any danger in that. Because not many of them will be planning on walking down alleys alone.

However if they housewife is murdered in an obscure alley because she is white then - no matter where you may be if you are white you feel in danger.

That is the distinction whether you can grasp that or not.
Click to expand...


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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom