Gas Bandit's Political Thread V: The Vampire Likes Bats

[Krisken]

Maybe when everyone is attacked equally we won't need it, eh? Until then, people who are targeted for being different need extra protection from bigoted, self righteous assholes.

Funny how that works.

I'm not arguing against whether we should have hate crime's etc, but how is it "extra protection"? It doesn't provide protection, it provides harsher punishment for those who others decide did it for "reason A" rather than "reason B" right?[/quote]
I'm going with harsher punishment is a deterrent. I know it isn't perfect, but then I don't have the answers on what the perfect solution to ending bigotry and hatred is.[/quote]
Fair enough. As far as ending stuff like that, I don't see how getting sentenced to prison for 20 years for murder and getting sentenced to prison for 22 years for hateful murder really makes a difference...

Thinking about that though... isn't that reasoning the same reasoning pro-death penalty people use? Isn't that regularly dismissed by the left as a poor argument?[/QUOTE]
As I said, I don't have the answers. I wish I did.

---------- Post added at 02:55 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:50 PM ----------

Touche. I was just calling it something different because, as we all know, only white (and now, apparently straight) people can be racists.

Which, of course, is a stupid comment that completely ignores the trends of our society. But living in your perfect, harmonious world where everyone is treated equal, gays, blacks, hispanics, women, elderly, and disabled aren't discriminated against must be nice.

 

[GasBandit]

Touche. I was just calling it something different because, as we all know, only white (and now, apparently straight) people can be racists.

Which, of course, is a stupid comment that completely ignores the trends of our society. But living in your perfect, harmonious world where everyone is treated equal, gays, blacks, hispanics, women, elderly, and disabled aren't discriminated against must be nice.[/QUOTE]

And once again we see that the true motivation of these things isn't equality - it's revenge, sometimes even if only for the sins of the father.

 

[Krisken]

Touche. I was just calling it something different because, as we all know, only white (and now, apparently straight) people can be racists.

Which, of course, is a stupid comment that completely ignores the trends of our society. But living in your perfect, harmonious world where everyone is treated equal, gays, blacks, hispanics, women, elderly, and disabled aren't discriminated against must be nice.[/quote]

And once again we see that the true motivation of these things isn't equality - it's revenge, sometimes even if only for the sins of the father.[/QUOTE]
And once again we see Gas use hyperbole to further his egocentric view of how society would be perfect in his delusional world view.

 

[GasBandit]

Touche. I was just calling it something different because, as we all know, only white (and now, apparently straight) people can be racists.

Which, of course, is a stupid comment that completely ignores the trends of our society. But living in your perfect, harmonious world where everyone is treated equal, gays, blacks, hispanics, women, elderly, and disabled aren't discriminated against must be nice.[/quote]

And once again we see that the true motivation of these things isn't equality - it's revenge, sometimes even if only for the sins of the father.[/quote]
And once again we see Gas use hyperbole to further his egocentric view of how society would be perfect in his delusional world view.[/quote]

Not hyperbolic at all. You would correct an injustice by forcing an injustice, rather than forcing equality. And thanks for yet another ad hominem as well - they're like M&Ms

 

[Krisken]

Touche. I was just calling it something different because, as we all know, only white (and now, apparently straight) people can be racists.

Which, of course, is a stupid comment that completely ignores the trends of our society. But living in your perfect, harmonious world where everyone is treated equal, gays, blacks, hispanics, women, elderly, and disabled aren't discriminated against must be nice.[/quote]

And once again we see that the true motivation of these things isn't equality - it's revenge, sometimes even if only for the sins of the father.[/quote]
And once again we see Gas use hyperbole to further his egocentric view of how society would be perfect in his delusional world view.[/quote]

Not hyperbolic at all. You would correct an injustice by forcing an injustice, rather than forcing equality. And thanks for yet another ad hominem as well - they're like M&Ms [/quote]
I know. It's the only thing you understand. You certainly don't respond properly to reasoned arguments.

Why the hell should I play by the rules of proper debate when you happily throw them out the window at every opportunity?

 

[Bowielee]

I sure feel sorry for all the oppression of those straight white guys. They the shaft all the time.

 

[GasBandit]

I know. It's the only thing you understand. You certainly don't respond properly to reasoned arguments.

Why the hell should I play by the rules of proper debate when you happily throw them out the window at every opportunity?

Even if it was hyperbole, which it was not, hyperbole is not a logical fallacy. Ad hominem is.

And so is...

I sure feel sorry for all the oppression of those straight white guys. They the shaft all the time.

... appeal to emotion, even when hidden behind sarcasm. The 14th amendment says "No state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." We all seem to agree that harsh penalties are a deterrent, which constitutes protection under the law. I am not as protected by this law as a gay or minority, hence it is unconstitutional.

 

[blotsfan]

Gas is completely right. Murder is murder. Killing someone because he sleeps with your wife is no different than killing someone because he's black.

 

[DarkAudit]

Shots fired near Lou Dobbs' house? Dude, it's hunting season, and you live where the deer are.

 

[makare]

http://www.baywindows.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=glbt&sc2=news&sc3=&id=98285

So hey, cool.

Calling something a "hate crime" makes my eyes roll. Equal protection under the law gets thrown UNDER THE BUS for such things. If I am standing next to someone who is gay or otherwise enjoying minority status... and someone else comes up and punches each of us, why is the assaulter punished less for punching me than for punching the person next to me? The same (increased) penalty should apply to all, not just a select few. And frankly, I think the penalty for a great many crimes should be made more harsh, especially for violent crimes. But you have to treat everyone equally, otherwise it's just state-sanctioned reverse-discrimination.[/QUOTE]

That's not accurate. If a group is particularly targeted they would require a special statute to bring them up to the same level of protection as everyone else. After statute= equal protection, before statute= not equal protection.

There are alot of state statutes for specific classes of person particularly under tort law like specific protection for people against becoming infected with STDs through negligence or knowing transmission.

It's just that the hate crime legislation gets the most press because it is easy to spin and people are sheep.

Hate crime legislation affects the analysis of the person's INTENT. In your hypothetical if someone comes up and hits you and the guy next to you because you both act like dicks and he doesnt like it, then you would be equally protected. If you get hit because you act like a dick and he doesn't like it. but then he hits the other guy just randomly because he is gay why shouldn't there be a harsher penalty? The law is not allowed to punish people for their status or what they are, only what they do. Why would the law not be specifically critical of criminals who kill someone because of their status?

 

[AshburnerX]

Gas is completely right. Murder is murder. Killing someone because he sleeps with your wife is no different than killing someone because he's black.

 

[blotsfan]

I don't think everyone that said Gas was wrong was being sarcastic.

 

[JONJONAUG]

http://www.baywindows.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=glbt&sc2=news&sc3=&id=98285

So hey, cool.

Calling something a "hate crime" makes my eyes roll. Equal protection under the law gets thrown UNDER THE BUS for such things. If I am standing next to someone who is gay or otherwise enjoying minority status... and someone else comes up and punches each of us, why is the assaulter punished less for punching me than for punching the person next to me? The same (increased) penalty should apply to all, not just a select few. And frankly, I think the penalty for a great many crimes should be made more harsh, especially for violent crimes. But you have to treat everyone equally, otherwise it's just state-sanctioned reverse-discrimination.[/QUOTE]

I can agree to some extent that trying to add extra sentencing time for motive (not intent, they're two different things entirely) can be pretty bullshit from case to case, but this gets a homosexual agenda a foot in the front door in Congress, which is good news even if there are problems with the idea of a hate crime act to begin with.

 

[makare]

http://www.baywindows.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=glbt&sc2=news&sc3=&id=98285

So hey, cool.

Calling something a "hate crime" makes my eyes roll. Equal protection under the law gets thrown UNDER THE BUS for such things. If I am standing next to someone who is gay or otherwise enjoying minority status... and someone else comes up and punches each of us, why is the assaulter punished less for punching me than for punching the person next to me? The same (increased) penalty should apply to all, not just a select few. And frankly, I think the penalty for a great many crimes should be made more harsh, especially for violent crimes. But you have to treat everyone equally, otherwise it's just state-sanctioned reverse-discrimination.[/QUOTE]

I can agree to some extent that trying to add extra sentencing time for motive (not intent, they're two different things entirely) can be pretty bullshit from case to case, but this gets a homosexual agenda a foot in the front door in Congress, which is good news even if there are problems with the idea of a hate crime act to begin with.[/QUOTE]

Explain your use of the word intent there because from what I have learned hate crimes are issues of intent. Before I go off on a big spiel about it I want to know what you mean first.

 

[Krisken]

I don't think everyone that said Gas was wrong was being sarcastic.

He thought you were being sarcastic. That's how absurd your comment was.

I have a hard time taking someone seriously who suggests that the reason for a crime being committed should have no bearing on the sentencing of the crime.

 

[AshburnerX]

I don't think everyone that said Gas was wrong was being sarcastic.

He thought you were being sarcastic. That's how absurd your comment was.

I have a hard time taking someone seriously who suggests that the reason for a crime being committed should have no bearing on the sentencing of the crime.[/QUOTE]

Though, to be fair, I personally believe the reason should only ADD years, not subtract them. The only justifiable homicide is self-defense.

 

[makare]

Ok I need confirmation that blotsfan was actually being sarcastic because if he wasn't consider my mind completely blown.

 

[JONJONAUG]

http://www.baywindows.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=glbt&sc2=news&sc3=&id=98285

So hey, cool.

Calling something a "hate crime" makes my eyes roll. Equal protection under the law gets thrown UNDER THE BUS for such things. If I am standing next to someone who is gay or otherwise enjoying minority status... and someone else comes up and punches each of us, why is the assaulter punished less for punching me than for punching the person next to me? The same (increased) penalty should apply to all, not just a select few. And frankly, I think the penalty for a great many crimes should be made more harsh, especially for violent crimes. But you have to treat everyone equally, otherwise it's just state-sanctioned reverse-discrimination.[/QUOTE]

I can agree to some extent that trying to add extra sentencing time for motive (not intent, they're two different things entirely) can be pretty bullshit from case to case, but this gets a homosexual agenda a foot in the front door in Congress, which is good news even if there are problems with the idea of a hate crime act to begin with.[/QUOTE]

Explain your use of the word intent there because from what I have learned hate crimes are issues of intent. Before I go off on a big spiel about it I want to know what you mean first.[/QUOTE]

Intent=What you intended to do.

Either way, you're committing a crime. But there's a pretty big difference between accidentally running someone over with a car and shooting them in the face after mulling it over for a week or two on how you're going to go about shooting them in the face.

Motive=Why you're doing it

Personally, I don't see why someone should get an extra ten years in jail for beating the shit out of someone because he was black rather then beating the shit out of someone because you wanted to rob them or they made advances on your girlfriend or something of that nature.

 

[makare]

Under the statutes that protect classes of people, perpetrators have the general intent to injure a person of a specific type either intentionally or through negligence. he could be doing it because he hates a certain kind of person but that isn't what the issue is. The issue is the intent to hurt a specific type of person. It's about how targets are chosen.

They are not being punished because they hate a group of people, they are being punished because they intended to hurt people based on a status.

Motive is not an element of the crime of murder but intent is.

 

[Armadillo]

-I believe all people should be treated equally regardless of skin color, gender, sexual orientation, or religion.

-According to many here, I'm either naive, stupid, racist, or some mishmash of the three.

-I live in Bizarro World.

 

[Krisken]

-I believe all people should be treated equally regardless of skin color, gender, sexual orientation, or religion.

-According to many here, I'm either naive, stupid, racist, or some mishmash of the three.

-I live in Bizarro World.

I said you are unreasonable. Which applies to all people who see everything in black and white.

 

[crono1224]

intent and motive are key elements of crimes, in no way can hate not be a 'possible' motive. ALSO there are justifications for crimes, so no murder =/ murder.

Also there are huge problems with deterrence for certain things they have been proved to not be a factor in the death penalty.

You must consider a couple things:
A) Heat of the moment you didn't think of the consequences
B) You don't think you will be caught.

 

[blotsfan]

Well in my world murder gets you the death sentence. Doesn't matter the motivation. Motivation doesn't mean shit if you've been murdered.

 

[crono1224]

Meh, you are rediculous, if you think justification doesn't exist and can't grasp the concepts that death sentence does nothing but occasionally kill innocent people.

 

[crono1224]

it also kills non innocent people? stops them from being a strain on the tax payer dollar? stops them from committing the crimes again.

is cheaper then life in prison (in a country like China)

not that I support the death penalty, but it does do more then kill innocent people.

So in china it is cheaper not here, cause we have shit ton of appeals and the such and those are done because killing an innocent person should be the worst thing you can do.

For the lack of belief in reform, I guess if you kill them you can't really prove they would have committed the crime again.

But all that should be said is if one innocent person dies it should be a huge deal, from the jury that sentences to the guy who injects him.

And to the arguement if you didn't kill him he would get out and kill again, just lock him away for forever, then maybe if you are wrong in 30 years you can let him out, cause you sure as hell aren't going to ressurect him.

 

[makare]

intent is a key element. motive is not. It might be a factor in premeditation but it is not a single stand alone factor in murder. Intent is.

 

[Charlie Don't Surf]

If one innocent person is put to death, the death penalty is unacceptable.

 

[DarkAudit]

If one innocent person is put to death, the death penalty is unacceptable.

Governor Perry disagrees. The arrogant asshole.

 

[Espy]

If one innocent person is put to death, the death penalty is unacceptable.

Governor Perry disagrees. The arrogant asshole.[/QUOTE]
Weren't you the guys ragging on people who saw things in black and white terms?

What was it Krisken said about people who view things in such black and white terms?

I said you are unreasonable. Which applies to all people who see everything in black and white.

Thanks. That was it.

 

[GasBandit]

intent and motive are key elements of crimes, in no way can hate not be a 'possible' motive. ALSO there are justifications for crimes, so no murder =/ murder.

There are mitigating circumstances such as self defense, sure. But as the man said, those LESSEN sentence, not INCREASE. So, by your logic, hate crime law is ok because "he was white" is a mitigating circumstance, and thus should have a lower sentence.

That's not accurate. If a group is particularly targeted they would require a special statute to bring them up to the same level of protection as everyone else. After statute= equal protection, before statute= not equal protection.

That's incorrect. Since severity of punishment is accepted as deterrent, deterrent becomes protection. To provide less deterrent for killing group A than you do for groups B, C, and D is injustice. The litmus test is, if it's equality, then the names should all be interchangeable.

After, all, if you increase the penalty for a given crime to the "hate crime" level of penalty but without the discrimination, the effect should still be the same benefit for those more at risk. To argue otherwise is to merely embrace the revenge/reparation motive, even if only subconsciously. Equal protection under the law. Equal protection. Not disproportionate protection according to status to assuage white guilt.

---------- Post added at 10:12 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:10 AM ----------

If one innocent person is put to death, the death penalty is unacceptable.

There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

 

[Covar]

If one innocent person is put to death, the death penalty is unacceptable.

Governor Perry disagrees. The arrogant asshole.[/QUOTE]
Weren't you the guys ragging on people who saw things in black and white terms?[/QUOTE]

That's completely different Espy.

 

[Espy]

If one innocent person is put to death, the death penalty is unacceptable.

Governor Perry disagrees. The arrogant asshole.[/QUOTE]
Weren't you the guys ragging on people who saw things in black and white terms?[/QUOTE]

That's completely different Espy. [/QUOTE]

Are you implying a double standard is in place? I am SHOCKED. SHOCKED.

I just hope charlie never has to work at a job where people could die by using their product, like... a CAR company. Or a PHARMACEUTICAL company. Or a CHEESE company. Dude's gonna have to quit within like five minutes.

 

[makare]

intent and motive are key elements of crimes, in no way can hate not be a 'possible' motive. ALSO there are justifications for crimes, so no murder =/ murder.

There are mitigating circumstances such as self defense, sure. But as the man said, those LESSEN sentence, not INCREASE. So, by your logic, hate crime law is ok because "he was white" is a mitigating circumstance, and thus should have a lower sentence.

That's not accurate. If a group is particularly targeted they would require a special statute to bring them up to the same level of protection as everyone else. After statute= equal protection, before statute= not equal protection.

That's incorrect. Since severity of punishment is accepted as deterrent, deterrent becomes protection. To provide less deterrent for killing group A than you do for groups B, C, and D is injustice. The litmus test is, if it's equality, then the names should all be interchangeable.

After, all, if you increase the penalty for a given crime to the "hate crime" level of penalty but without the discrimination, the effect should still be the same benefit for those more at risk. To argue otherwise is to merely embrace the revenge/reparation motive, even if only subconsciously. Equal protection under the law. Equal protection. Not disproportionate protection according to status to assuage white guilt.

---------- Post added at 10:12 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:10 AM ----------

[/QUOTE]

I'm pretty sure that hate crime statutes are about punishment more than deterrence. Since deterrence is generally bullshit anyway. It has nothing to do with white guilt, it has to do with the reality of the world we live in. There are inequalities so severe that the law has to step in and even things out. But I know you have a rose colored view of the world so I don't expect you to see that.

 

[GasBandit]

So the health care bill clocks in at $2.2 million per word.

The US has bullied Honduras into taking their ousted president back.

Years down the road, remember when this was noted: US Admiral concerned over Chinese military buildup. You load a gun when you intend to shoot it, don't you?

It's fallacy to even think you can measure "jobs saved or created" as the Obama administration keeps claiming to do... that's like me measuring "people I haven't murdered." I should be a candidate for sainthood, or at least a Congressional Medal of Honor, for all the lives I've saved by that logic... but anyway, it turns out that the Obama admin. has overstated, by as much as 300% in some places, the number of jobs "saved or created."

But don't worry, Sting is keeping faith with the messiah. Because Celebrities know what's best for us, always.

Holy crap. This has got to be the best goddamned sauerkraut I've ever tasted. I mean.. whoa.

What's George Soros blowing $50 million on?

Planning your future? You might want to read about the highest stress, lowest pay jobs. And keep clear of them.

---------- Post added at 10:46 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:39 AM ----------

I'm pretty sure that hate crime statutes are about punishment more than deterrence. Since deterrence is generally bullshit anyway. It has nothing to do with white guilt, it has to do with the reality of the world we live in. There are inequalities so severe that the law has to step in and even things out. But I know you have a rose colored view of the world so I don't expect you to see that.

It makes me giggle every time lefties accuse ME of being optimistic about humanity.

You hold an unconstitutional and unjust opinion, that you fight inequality with inequality.

Plus, you keep seeming to labor under the false idea that I'm saying hate crimes should have their penalty LOWERED to standard punishment levels, when I'm saying that standard punishment levels should rise equally.

 

[Covar]

Damn optimists. Always assuming the best in people.