• 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

AGENT J said:
it is but that action is meaningless to the discussion and context.
Click to expand...

No I asked if you needed more then action to break a law.

So the action of breaking a murder law is the killing of someone correct?

And the action of breaking a conspiracy law is the act of conspiring to break the law with other people correct?
 
AGENT J said:
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
Click to expand...

The fact that you think giving special treatment to certain people under the guise of hate crime laws and justifying it clearly shows that you are in denial or feigning ignorance. The man in the OP clearly commited a criminal threat of violence against multiple people.The penalty for that crime is a 180 days in jail, $2000 dollar fine and surcharge. He was charged with a hate crime so that he could a year in prison.The idea that you do not think that is somehow extra justice or special treatment for harming a protected class is absurd.
 
Last edited:
jamesrage said:
1.)The fact that you think giving special treatment to certain people under the guise of hate crime laws and justifying it clearly shows that you are in denial or feigning ignorance.
2.) The idea that you do not think that is somehow extra justice or special treatment for harming a protected class is absurd.
Click to expand...

1.) what special treatment, what certain people
another DODGE very telling
2.) what special treatment, what protected class

still waiting and you keep dodging
 
Libertie76 said:
1.)No I asked if you needed more then action to break a law.
2.) So the action of breaking a murder law is the killing of someone correct?
3.) And the action of breaking a conspiracy law is the act of conspiring to break the law with other people correct?
Click to expand...

1.) correct and your follow up question has no impact to that
to answer your question again, the answer is YES, you need to break the law/commit a crime
2.) English please
3.) see #2
 
AGENT J said:
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?
Click to expand...

AGENT J said:
lol
yes
Click to expand...

So your previous statement saying nothing changed was actually wrong correct?
 
Libertie76 said:
So your previous statement saying nothing changed was actually wrong correct?
Click to expand...
false since the context of that statement was referring to our discussion of context LMAO

again English 101
your post faisl and facts win again

Please stay on topic and this is the topic

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
 
AGENT J said:
1.) correct and your follow up question has no impact to that
to answer your question again, the answer is YES, you need to break the law/commit a crime
2.) English please
3.) see #2
Click to expand...

THe question was do you need action alone to commit a crime, and your saying yes

So then if you suggest that planing a crime is a crime, that's the equivalence to you breaking a premeditated law by the action of planning out the crime or what would be considered a cognitive action, an action of thought as opposed to a physical action

If you assault someone your action of breaking the law by the action of assault, or a physical action.

You have previously admitted that both of these are punishable actions, showing cognitive actions and physical actions are punishable by law

So with that being established, a hate crime is the action of breaking hate crime laws by allowing your own personal bias to motivate you into the action of committing a crime. So the action of allowing your bias to motivate you on your crime is a cognitive action, considering personal bias is opinion and thought. Thus, in court, having to prove that this actually took place you must establish the fact that the person in question has a bias. Effectively putting his/her opinion in politics in terms on prosecution, or the additional punishment based on the persons politics. If you can't establish this, you can't prove the persons bias motivated the crime. So effectively, you are being brought up on charges based on your own personal political opinion.
 
AGENT J said:
false since the context of that statement was referring to our discussion of context LMAO

again English 101
your post faisl and facts win again

Please stay on topic and this is the topic

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
Click to expand...

"1.) again ENGLISH, me adding names to it doesnt change anything especially context lol" did the adding of words change anything?

The context of the statement was referring to changing the statement, you added context as a failed attempt to not look stupid for changing your words to support ur opinion

No already told you I don't, already showed you the written words of the law to prove it. Do I need to do this again?
 
Libertie76 said:
1.)THe question was do you need action alone to commit a crime, and your saying yes
2.)So then if you suggest that planing a crime is a crime, that's the equivalence to you breaking a premeditated law by the action of planning out the crime or what would be considered a cognitive action, an action of thought as opposed to a physical action
3.)If you assault someone your action of breaking the law by the action of assault, or a physical action.
4.)You have previously admitted that both of these are punishable actions, showing cognitive actions and physical actions are punishable by law
5.)So with that being established, a hate crime is the action of breaking hate crime laws by allowing your own personal bias to motivate you into the action of committing a crime. So the action of allowing your bias to motivate you on your crime is a cognitive action, considering personal bias is opinion and thought. Thus, in court, having to prove that this actually took place you must establish the fact that the person in question has a bias. Effectively putting his/her opinion in politics in terms on prosecution, or the additional punishment based on the persons politics. If you can't establish this, you can't prove the persons bias motivated the crime. So effectively, you are being brought up on charges based on your own personal political opinion.
Click to expand...

1.) your mistake again i never said that ever lol why do you make stuff up or is the language barrier that hard for you?
2.) I dont suggest this
3.) English please
4.) see #3
5.) also more English please
but one thing i THINK you are trying to say and failed is about politics. Politics is not included in federal hate crime definition.
 
Libertie76 said:
"1.) again ENGLISH, me adding names to it doesnt change anything especially context lol" did the adding of words change anything?

The context of the statement was referring to changing the statement, you added context as a failed attempt to not look stupid for changing your words to support ur opinion

2.)No already told you I don't, already showed you the written words of the law to prove it. Do I need to do this again?
Click to expand...

thank you for reposting my words and proving in context nothing changed and my statement was correct lol
again English 101

2.) yes because NOTHING you posted proved it lol you tried to say "perceived" changed my example but it factually doesnt. The words of law and defintion of the crime are exatcly what prove your statments wrong and the answer to be yes. Why do you post lies?

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
 
AGENT J said:
1.) your mistake again i never said that ever lol why do you make stuff up or is the language barrier that hard for you?
2.) I dont suggest this
3.) English please
4.) see #3
5.) also more English please
but one thing i THINK you are trying to say and failed is about politics. Politics is not included in federal hate crime definition.
Click to expand...

1) ok retread your statements please stop changing words

2)"10.) planning is an action, again, english" in regards to planning a crime is a crime

6) the suggestion that races or other ethnic groups don't belong in your community and using a hate crime to try to make that happen is an "activity associated with the governance of an area" which means a personal reflection on that individual's politics. You're wrong don't have any idea what your talking sbout
 
AGENT J said:
thank you for reposting my words and proving in context nothing changed and my statement was correct lol
again English 101

2.) yes because NOTHING you posted proved it lol you tried to say "perceived" changed my example but it factually doesnt. The words of law and defintion of the crime are exatcly what prove your statments wrong and the answer to be yes. Why do you post lies?

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
Click to expand...

So then why did you say "especially context" if the entire statement was only about context
 
Libertie76 said:
1) ok retread your statements please stop changing words
2.)2)"10.) planning is an action, again, english" in regards to planning a crime is a crime
3.)6) the suggestion that races or other ethnic groups don't belong in your community and using a hate crime to try to make that happen is an "activity associated with the governance of an area" which means a personal reflection on that individual's politics. You're wrong don't have any idea what your talking sbout
Click to expand...

1.) what?
2.) theres no suggestion there
3.) wow, you REALLY do have a language barrier problem. a person choosing thier own subjective personal governance of an area is NOT the same as official government and its not politics.

by definition, "politics" is not part of federal hate crime. This fact wont change.
 
AGENT J said:
1.) what?
2.) theres no suggestion there
3.) wow, you REALLY do have a language barrier problem. a person choosing thier own subjective personal governance of an area is NOT the same as official government and its not politics.

by definition, "politics" is not part of federal hate crime. This fact wont change.
Click to expand...

No but personal bias is a reflection of the persons politics. The hate crime bill doesn't say politics, but if I'm a white racist I'm politically a white racist
 
Libertie76 said:
So then why did you say "especially context" if the entire statement was only about context
Click to expand...

to stress it and the other thing was MEANING which is context . . .
seriously where are you from? WOW

i will not be responding to off topic stuff anymore. its nothing more then you deflecting from your posts being destroyed foe like 20 pages. lol

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
 
Libertie76 said:
The hate crime bill doesn't say politics
Click to expand...

100% correct, hence politics aren't in the hate crime definition. thats the end of that topic and deflection also.
 
AGENT J said:
to stress it and the other thing was MEANING which is context . . .
seriously where are you from? WOW

i will not be responding to off topic stuff anymore. its nothing more then you deflecting from your posts being destroyed foe like 20 pages. lol

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
Click to expand...

"1.) again ENGLISH, me adding names to it doesnt change anything especially context lol" where does it say meaning in that quote

No already said no, proved it by showing you that you can perceive someone's race religion etc of a victim and it can be he real race religion etc. of the victim. Therefore showing your bias towards the victims identity whether it's just perceived or real
 
Libertie76 said:
No already said no, proved it by showing you that you can perceive someone's race religion etc of a victim and it can be he real race religion etc. of the victim. Therefore showing your bias towards the victims identity whether it's just perceived or real
Click to expand...

perceive doesnt change the example provided one bit, you proved NOTHING lol
so i ask AGAIN

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
 
AGENT J said:
100% correct, hence politics aren't in the hate crime definition. thats the end of that topic and deflection also.
Click to expand...

Haha now you're just trying to intentionally look childish with that one. Good job on cutting my entire quote.

I can pass a bill that says anyone who believes in socializing medicine is a terrorist and you'll say since there's no mention of the word politics in the bill it doesn't have anything to do with politics.
 
AGENT J said:
perceive doesnt change the example provided one bit, you proved NOTHING lol
so i ask AGAIN

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
Click to expand...

If the victim of the arson is mark zuckerberg, an atheist owning a church, and the person bombed a church because he hated Christians. It's his perception that mark zuckerberg is a Christian that caused him to be the victim of the hate crime. Bias towards the victims identity whether perceived or real. Completely proves it your just unwilling to accept it

Just like your unwilling to accept you changed words to change your quote to try to not look dumb and just like you acting stupid when I breakdown how a hate crime puts a persons opinion on trial
 
AGENT J said:
perceive doesnt change the example provided one bit, you proved NOTHING lol
so i ask AGAIN

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
Click to expand...

You forgot to tell me where it says meaning in the quote "1.) again ENGLISH, me adding names to it doesnt change anything especially context lol"
 
Libertie76 said:
If the victim of the arson is mark zuckerberg, an atheist owning a church, and the person bombed a church because he hated Christians. It's his perception that mark zuckerberg is a Christian that caused him to be the victim of the hate crime. Bias towards the victims identity whether perceived or real. Completely proves it your just unwilling to accept it

Just like your unwilling to accept you changed words to change your quote to try to not look dumb and just like you acting stupid when I breakdown how a hate crime puts a persons opinion on trial
Click to expand...

simple question that destroys you false opinion
in MY example that I made, was perception involved? nooooooooope
so YOU cant add it
your posts completely fails gets destroyed with one questions and facts win again

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
 
AGENT J said:
simple question that destroys you false opinion
in MY example that I made, was perception involved? nooooooooope
so YOU cant add it
your posts completely fails gets destroyed with one questions and facts win again

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
Click to expand...

Yes perception is involved because he's bombing a church with the perception that everyone involved in the church is a practitioner of the Christian religion. Considering he's bombing a church "because" he hates atheists is asinine, he's bombing a church because he hates Christians. In your example

How does it feel to constantly be made to look like a 4th grader? It sucks being bullied in political discussion doesn't it?
 
Libertie76 said:
1.)Yes perception is involved because he's bombing a church with the perception that everyone involved in the church is a practitioner of the Christian religion.
2.)Considering he's bombing a church "because" he hates atheists is asinine
3.) he's bombing a church because he hates Christians. In your example
4.) How does it feel to constantly be made to feel to look like a 4th grader?
5.) It sucks being bullied in political discussion doesn't it?
Click to expand...

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