Loading
Recently Submitted News
0 commentsGOP Launches "Fire Pelosi"
Reaganite - The money's already pouring-in to the GOP's new Fire Pelosi site... so, you ready to tell us...
Democrats Ignore the People
realamericanpolitics.wordpress.com - We now know the supposed pro-life Democratic house member Bart Stupak and others aligned with him were...
Stupak was going to vote yes all along
Youtube - STUPAK LIED. In a Michagan forum back in October he said he would vote for the bill...
Health Care Vote Update
Reaganite - In yet another twist to the ObamaCare odyssey, the GOP is saying that the Senate parliamentarian will...
- 22 Comments
- Add a comment
Show Newest to Oldest
Show Oldest to Newest
grant1959ca (Green) - 5 months ago
Reply to ironhead
No, you're mistaken. You stated the following: "They feel entitled to get away with it - whi … Show full comment
No, you're mistaken. You stated the following: "They feel entitled to get away with it - whi … Show full comment
you obvously are insulated from the world the rest of us live in.....
Teikiatsu (Independent) - 5 months ago
Reply to ironhead
locksmith - Your vapid post amounts to nothing more than hackneyed ad hominems and no substance, … Show full comment
locksmith - Your vapid post amounts to nothing more than hackneyed ad hominems and no substance, … Show full comment
When was Glenn Beck cheering on the Iraq war? I recall him opposing it and the Patriot Act from the start.
Once we were in the country, sure he feels we have to finish the job. That doesn't equal cheering it on.
Teikiatsu (Independent) - 5 months ago
So you think a crime of violence suddenly is more criminal because the perpetrators didn't like the victim? Isn't that the reason they acted with violence? Or do you think a calm and methodical crime against a vicitm is better for some reason?
Legislating emotions is a bad idea, it leads to regulation and intrusion. Worst case scenario you get thought crimes. It's political correctness run amok.
countryplowboy 5 months ago
You can't outlaw opinion. It is, quite simply, impossible. Some will always have racist, sexist or whatever -ist opinion they have. I don't think you would find anyone on the site who wouldn't PERSONALLY support a ban on opinions such as Neo-Nazism. But when actually trying to do it is where the fit hits the shan. Because they understand when you outlaw one viewpoint it sets a precedent for outlawing others.
It would be like legislating gravity weaker. It won't actually DO a damn thing.
ironhead (Libertarian) - 5 months ago
Reply to lock smith
I than said time and time again why argue with good ole boy iron head who ever the hell he is he is … Show full comment
I than said time and time again why argue with good ole boy iron head who ever the hell he is he is … Show full comment
locksmith -
Your vapid post amounts to nothing more than hackneyed ad hominems and no substance, probably because you are a troll. Good Ole Boy and I disagree quite often, and strongly in many cases. I'm not a racist, and I deplore the neocon Sean Hannity. Glenn Beck is also histrionic moron, who was cheering on the Iraq war just a few years ago and calling Ron Paul supporters (I definitely supported, and still do support Ron Paul) traitors because we support a non-interventionist foreign policy.
ironhead (Libertarian) - 5 months ago
Reply to Rosetteismyname
The higer severity given to a hate crime is to discourage that act itself. If someone isn't like … Show full comment
The higer severity given to a hate crime is to discourage that act itself. If someone isn't like … Show full comment
No, you're mistaken.
You stated the following: "They feel entitled to get away with it - which only proves a higher concern for a more prolonged and needed rehabilitation as opposed to someone who just beats someone up for another reason."
Your statement does not understand psychopathology. Whatever distortion the criminal experiences in either case (see my example below of the murder of a robbery victim vs. the murder of gay person), the fundamental problem is that they do not care that they do not have the right to violate others and cause harm/injury to others.
There are many people who hate others simply because they are gay. Personally, I find such bigots to be morally bankrupt, small-minded, and generally atavistic. But the overwhelming majority of these people do not go out and beat someone to death because they hate them for being gay. That is the fundamental distinction. Similarly, virtually everyone would like to have a million dollars. However, only a small portion of the population would be willing to murder someone for the money. The crime is the act of harming or killing someone, not the emotion of hatred or the thought/belief that people should only be heterosexual.
ironhead (Libertarian) - 5 months ago
Reply to Terry T
I have to disagree with Ironhead. Assaults such as murdering someone are unexcusable, and there is n … Show full comment
I have to disagree with Ironhead. Assaults such as murdering someone are unexcusable, and there is n … Show full comment
Terry,
I think that you misunderstood what I said. I DID NOT "suggest that a murder is justifiable." Murder is arguably the most egregious violation of a person's rights - their right to their body and their life. The same goes for any violent physical transgression.
What I am saying is that hate crimes are thought-crimes. The crime of murder, assault, theft, anything such as that should be treated very seriously and should be applied as equally as possible in every case. However, I do not think that the law (the state) should make moral judgments, even if I agree with them.
With hate crimes, the law is distinguishing between the murder of someone in one setting (in the context of a bank robbery, for example) and in another (the murder of someone because the victim was gay). I find both acts morally reprehensible and egregious violations of both victims' rights. I also do not think that the crime in either case is (bank robbery case) due to the criminal not caring about the victims' life as much as their desire for money - or (in the case of the murder of the gay person) due to the criminal hating gay people. The crime in both of these hypothetical scenarios is that the criminal took the life of their victim. The law should not morally distinguish between the two and punish one of the crimes more heavily. In effect, it would be like saying that the bank robbery victim's life was less worthy than the gay person's life. In an indirect sense, this drives at equality before the law.
lock smith 5 months ago
I than said time and time again why argue with good ole boy iron head who ever the hell he is he is stupid not only that he is a racist thanks to hannity america and glenn beck
Good Ole Boy (Independent) - 5 months ago
Reply to Rosetteismyname
the constitution means nothing to you - especially since quality is in it.... amendment for women … Show full comment
the constitution means nothing to you - especially since quality is in it.... amendment for women … Show full comment
The constitution is what our congress and president should adhere to but as we have seen lately they are not. Equality is why these laws are wrong, one person is equal to another, the same crime done to one and the penalty should be the same if done to anyone. Ironhead is the one with correct points that you should see.
Rosetteismyname (Centrist) - 5 months ago
Reply to Good Ole Boy
The constitution means nothing to you. Equality must not either.
The constitution means nothing to you. Equality must not either.
the constitution means nothing to you - especially since quality is in it....
amendment for women
amendment for blacks
Equality obviously doesn't mean anything to you...
Read Terry T! He Makes great points
Good Ole Boy (Independent) - 5 months ago
Reply to Rosetteismyname
The higer severity given to a hate crime is to discourage that act itself. If someone isn't like … Show full comment
The higer severity given to a hate crime is to discourage that act itself. If someone isn't like … Show full comment
The constitution means nothing to you. Equality must not either.
Rosetteismyname (Centrist) - 5 months ago
Reply to Terry T
I have to disagree with Ironhead. Assaults such as murdering someone are unexcusable, and there is n … Show full comment
I have to disagree with Ironhead. Assaults such as murdering someone are unexcusable, and there is n … Show full comment
Good Point!
Rosetteismyname (Centrist) - 5 months ago
Reply to ironhead
Assault is already, and always should be, illegal. It is a violation of a person's body and being. … Show full comment
Assault is already, and always should be, illegal. It is a violation of a person's body and being. … Show full comment
The higer severity given to a hate crime is to discourage that act itself.
If someone isn't likely to assault any typical individual - but only assault hispanics - then hispanics are the only potential victim. Does the person have a sign across their forehead stating, "I hate hispanics" At least to warn them against an unforseen harm against them?
One would doubt it. You raise this question like they are getting hit with a higher severity of a crime b/c of just their thoughts. But it isn't so...
The individual hating is giving merit to the person who is black or gay. They are saying it is your fault that you are gay and that is why I am beating you up. They feel entitled to get away with it - which only proves a higher concern for a more prolonged and needed rehabilitation as opposed to someone who just beats someone up for another reason.
Good Ole Boy (Independent) - 5 months ago
Reply to Heels
Tempering your comments with "could" and "grey areas" is much better. Much more … Show full comment
Tempering your comments with "could" and "grey areas" is much better. Much more … Show full comment
Nothing unconstitutional is justified, as this treats a class of victims worth more than others. I also object to crimes against police having stiffer penalties.
Heels 5 months ago
Reply to Good Ole Boy
What else is needed, under equal treatment, it's unconstitutional. Read the constitution. If you thi … Show full comment
What else is needed, under equal treatment, it's unconstitutional. Read the constitution. If you thi … Show full comment
Tempering your comments with "could" and "grey areas" is much better. Much more honest. Fairer. More balanced.
But "blathering on" is what others refer to as "presenting an argument," which you have yet to do on the question whether hate crimes are justified.
But I'm all about second chances. Call a friend, if necessary.
Good Ole Boy (Independent) - 5 months ago
Reply to Heels
Blurting out a conclusion may be efficient, but it's hardly persuasive. Present some sort of argu … Show full comment
Blurting out a conclusion may be efficient, but it's hardly persuasive. Present some sort of argu … Show full comment
What else is needed, under equal treatment, it's unconstitutional. Read the constitution. If you think some people have more rights than others, slavery could be justified. I don't need to blather on. I think you you can think for yourself or am I wrong? These are not grey areas at least the unconstitutional one. That it is federal law shows how far the congress thinks of the constitution.
Heels 5 months ago
Reply to Good Ole Boy
Hate crime laws are unconstitutional, they make one person more valuable than another. If you agree … Show full comment
Hate crime laws are unconstitutional, they make one person more valuable than another. If you agree … Show full comment
Blurting out a conclusion may be efficient, but it's hardly persuasive.
Present some sort of argument, or at least try, and I might even respond to it.
Good Ole Boy (Independent) - 5 months ago
Reply to Heels
I won't disagree that hate crimes present philosophical problems, but if they result in deterrence ( … Show full comment
I won't disagree that hate crimes present philosophical problems, but if they result in deterrence ( … Show full comment
Hate crime laws are unconstitutional, they make one person more valuable than another. If you agree with them then slavery was OK too.
Heels 5 months ago
Reply to ironhead
Assault is already, and always should be, illegal. It is a violation of a person's body and being. … Show full comment
Assault is already, and always should be, illegal. It is a violation of a person's body and being. … Show full comment
I won't disagree that hate crimes present philosophical problems, but if they result in deterrence (however challenging to prove or disprove) on balance I could live with them.
And, for what it's worth, I find "never" to be a word that is rarely appropriate in such contexts. Something like "always." Or maybe the world is just that simple and I've wasted a lot of time on some pretty narrow questions.
Also, please, educate me on the (apparently) necessary exclusivity of morality and rights. I might have thought they could hunt together quite neatly.
Above all, thanks for thinking.
Terry T (Libertarian) - 5 months ago
I have to disagree with Ironhead. Assaults such as murdering someone are unexcusable, and there is no reason why they should take place in the first place. It is a person's natural right [through whatever faith they believe in] and under the United States Constitution to believe in whatever the hell they like. However, they should never wish to physically violate the rights of others for not following their ideals of life. Cases such as Matthew Shepard, James Byrd Jr, and Emmitt Till are violent crimes to humanity that should have never had taken place in the first place. And, any one who suggest that a murder is justifiable is very much an anal retentive person.
Terry T (Libertarian) - 5 months ago
I have to disagree with Ironhead. Assaults such as murdering someone are unexcusable, and there is no reason why they should take place in the first place. It is a person's natural right [through whatever faith they believe in] and under the United States Constitution to believe in whatever the hell they like. However, they should never wish to physically violate the rights of others for not following their ideals of life. Cases such as Matthew Shepard, James Byrd Jr, and Emmitt Till are violent crimes to humanity that should have never had taken place in the first place. And, any one who suggest that a murder is justifiable is very much an anal retentive person.
ironhead (Libertarian) - 5 months ago
Assault is already, and always should be, illegal. It is a violation of a person's body and being. Hate crimes are thought-crimes. Why should the penalty be higher for assaulting someone because of their hatred of gays? To me, it is morally repugnant to assault anyone and to hate someone because of their gender identity or sexual orientation. However, a crime does not encompass morality, it encompasses a violation of someone's individual rights. The assault is the crime, having emotions (ugly as they may be) should never be a crime.
1 - 22 / 22
SPREAD THE WORD