Libertie76
Banned
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2014
- Messages
- 2,143
- Reaction score
- 313
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
1.) false thats what you are ADDING, thanks for proving your own claim wrong.
can you show me in MY examples where it says that? you cant because you are making it up
2.) good thing nobody said that
3.) correct, which is NOTHING like number 1, thank you again for proving your own claim wrong
4.) i dont know since facts, laws, crime definitions and basic English have defeated you each time tell us?
5.) again i wouldnt know, ive never been bullied in political discussion have you?
this is your question: "Can you be charged with a hate crime without a bias towards the victims identity"
the factual answer is : "Yes"
do you agree yes or no?
if yes great you learned!
if no, provide the facts you have the prove it
Again how does it feel?
1) "in MY example that I made, was perception involved? nooooooooope" yes because the assailant bombed the church because he hated Christians and was under the perception that the people involved in the church were Christian, not atheists
2) well your suggestion is that since mark zuckerberg owned the church he didn't fall into the bias on the identity, but considering he owned the church gave the assailant the perception he was Christian. If his reasons alone for bombing the church was motivated by his bias for Christianity. If that perception didn't exist why would he go after an atheists personal Christian church?
4) defeated me? You mean interpretation of part of the definition but blatantly ignoring the other part means defeating me? Again how does it feel
5) just tell me how does it feel? Considering you've been "destroyed"