• 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!

Utah man gets maximum sentence in hate crime case

that changes nothing unless the person doing the crime PERCEIVED something or it could be proven that he did
in the example this factually did NOT happen. Your post fails again.

maybe your next post wont fail and facts wont beat it again.

I can do this all day its so much fun when people post ies and deny facts. Pointing out when people do this is my second favorite thing to do here.

So now im waiting for those FACTS that support your claim.

Haha this is really funny argument here, proven that he perceived something. Well gee that he perceived a Christian church was built for Christians and not atheists?
 
Here's he original quote "You could be MOTIVATED to punch a guy cause he is black but you DONT actually act on that so there would be ZERO crime if there was no action/"

Here's the new quote
if TIM feels motivated to punch Jim solely because he is black BUT never does it, no crime takes place. TIM committed no crime. this is a fact.

Tell me why aren't here any bolder words in the second quote
WOW!!!!
really???

you are definitely not from the US

easy because if you understood english ill show you how context FACTUALLY didnt change

it = punch= action
committed = punch = act

nothing changed
facts win again
 
Haha this is really funny argument here, proven that he perceived something. Well gee that he perceived a Christian church was built for Christians and not atheists?

not an argument it simply how law works in the US, he already admitted his reason. but yes it is very funny watching you chase your tail and fact winning every time
 
1.)So making **** up is your strategy?
2.)The difference between assault and attempted murder is what crime you intend to commit, or to put it another way, the action you where trying to do. Hate crimes are crimes of motivation, why you committed a crime.
3.) No amount of lame formatting is going to change that basic fact.

1.) i notice you didn't point out anything you claimed i made up and then prove it.
nothing was made up
2.) based on MOTIVATION, just like hate crime LOL thank you for proving that. the definition from the FBI even supports that fact
3.) i agree thats why its not a thought crime and there is no crime without action
 
1.) i notice you didn't point out anything you claimed i made up and then prove it.
nothing was made up
2.) based on MOTIVATION, just like hate crime LOL thank you for proving that. the definition from the FBI even supports that fact
3.) i agree thats why its not a thought crime and there is no crime without action

No, not based on motivation, based on the actions intended. This is really not complex stuff, so I do not see why you are so confused by it.
 
1.)No, not based on motivation, based on the actions intended. This is really not complex stuff, so I do not see why you are so confused by it.

1.Yes motivation. that attack was motivated by the want and thought to kill
2.) I agree youll get it soon if you keep thinking about

hate crimes are not thought crimes
 
WOW!!!!
really???

you are definitely not from the US

easy because if you understood english ill show you how context FACTUALLY didnt change

it = punch= action
committed = punch = act

nothing changed
facts win again

Ok so by your example

Does = acting= action

Being motivated = an action

Going = action

Think =acting= action

if bob decides he's going to punch josh solely because he is black BUT never thinks it, no crime takes place. Bob committed no crime. this is a fact.

See how the context didn't change at all there
 
Ok so by your example

Does = acting= action

Being motivated = an action

Going = action

Think =acting= action

if bob decides he's going to punch josh solely because he is black BUT never thinks it, no crime takes place. Bob committed no crime. this is a fact.

See how the context didn't change at all there

WOW? thats not even close to making sense or my example
i simply have nothing to say if you think my example changed context. Theres no one educated, honest and objective person that would think my exampl changed anything.
Your inability to understand english leaves you at a loss, again your issue not mine :shrug:

so let me know when you have any FACTS supporting you proven wrong claim, thanks
 
WOW? thats not even close to making sense or my example
i simply have nothing to say if you think my example changed context. Theres no one educated, honest and objective person that would think my exampl changed anything.
Your inability to understand english leaves you at a loss, again your issue not mine :shrug:

so let me know when you have any FACTS supporting you proven wrong claim, thanks

You redefined act and action to words that just implied physical action. Context was changed by you
 
You redefined act and action to words that just implied physical action. Context was changed by you

ZERO context was change that was the context the whole time :lamo
a punch is a physical action

again . . english

seriously where are you from?
 
ZERO context was change that was the context the whole time :lamo
a punch is a physical action

again . . english

seriously where are you from?

First interpretation could be "You could be MOTIVATED to punch a guy cause he is black but you DONT actually think on that so there would be ZERO crime if there was no thought/"

Think= act=action

But since you reworded your sentence you redefined it that act and action only meant physical action which changed the context
 
First interpretation could be "You could be MOTIVATED to punch a guy cause he is black but you DONT actually think on that so there would be ZERO crime if there was no thought/"

Think= act=action

But since you reworded your sentence you redefined it that act and action only meant physical action which changed the context


???? "COULD BE"
again your perception in your head and YOUR misunderstanding has nothing to do with the actual context.
your misunderstanding is not my issue, thats your mistake.

I factually changed ZERO context

again .. english
your rewording of mine is NOTHING like i said.
 
???? "COULD BE"
again your perception in your head and YOUR misunderstanding has nothing to do with the actual context.
your misunderstanding is not my issue, thats your mistake.

I factually changed ZERO context

again .. english
your rewording of mine is NOTHING like i said.

You're really immature in your responses

How about this do you agree with his statement


You could be MOTIVATED to plot to punch a guy cause he is black but you DONT actually punch him so there would be ZERO crime if there was no punching/"
 
1.)You're really immature in your responses
2.)How about this do you agree with his statement
You could be MOTIVATED to plot to punch a guy cause he is black but you DONT actually punch him so there would be ZERO crime if there was no punching/"

1.) if facts make you feel that way so be it, why does being wrong make you angry
its really immature that you ignore facts and dont admit your statement was wrong, does that really matter?

2.) you do understand that plotting and planning are basically the same right? one just has some secrecy to it

that statement is false, if you get caught planning a crime and theres evidence you are planing one that in itself can be a crime.
 
1.) if facts make you feel that way so be it, why does being wrong make you angry
its really immature that you ignore facts and dont admit your statement was wrong, does that really matter?

2.) you do understand that plotting and planning are basically the same right? one just has some secrecy to it

that statement is false, if you get caught planning a crime and theres evidence you are planing one that in itself can be a crime.

So the statement of being motivated to plan a crime, actually planning a crime is, but not fulfilling the crime is still a crime because you had partaken in the action of plotting the crime correct? Especially considering the motivation is the hate crime

However have a motivation to think about punching someone isn't a crime, actually taking physical action in the punching of the person is the crime. Thinking is an action, Then would you say that the common basis of "action" isn't the only thing to required to commit a crime?
 
So the statement of being motivated to plan a crime, actually planning a crime is, but not fulfilling the crime is still a crime because you had partaken in the action of plotting the crime correct? Especially considering the motivation is the hate crime

However have a motivation to think about punching someone isn't a crime, actually taking physical action in the punching of the person is the crime. Thinking is an action, Then would you say that the common basis of "action" isn't the only thing to required to commit a crime?

What? LOL
english please
 
WOW!!!!
really???

you are definitely not from the US

easy because if you understood english ill show you how context FACTUALLY didnt change

it = punch= action
committed = punch = act

nothing changed
facts win again

You say context didn't change, did your words change?
 
so you have no answer? i didn't think so

Your post has already been answered.You choose to believe that we should give special treatment to special classes of people.Just don't complain when an attacker of a rich person is charged with a hate crime and given extra punishment.
 
You say context didn't change, did your words change?

correct since context is ALSO meaning, it was not changed

Context
1. The part of a text or statement that surrounds a particular word or passage and determines its meaning.

its meaning never changed :shrug:

I guess you're done discussing the fact your statement was wrong and now you are desperately trying to find any off topic mistake lol

so do you have any facts that support you yet? im waiting?
 
1.)Your post has already been answered.
2.) You choose to believe that we should give special treatment to special classes of people.
3.)Just don't complain when an attacker of a rich person is charged with a hate crime and given extra punishment.

1.) this is factually not true you dodged it.
the question was what protected class are you talking about
please answer, thanks
2.) what special treatment and what special classes
you keep stating this lie but cant back it up
3.) by definition thats not a hate crime. But if the law changes it to one id be fine with that. So what ever you tried there just failed lol

ill be waitin on your answers but i bet you dodge them again
 
correct since context is ALSO meaning, it was not changed

Context
1. The part of a text or statement that surrounds a particular word or passage and determines its meaning.

its meaning never changed :shrug:

I guess you're done discussing the fact your statement was wrong and now you are desperately trying to find any off topic mistake lol

so do you have any facts that support you yet? im waiting?

Yes or no did your words change?
 
Back
Top Bottom