If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Advocate)   Everything you know about the Matthew Shepard murder is PC story embellishment, if not straight-up nonsense - so says a) Pat Robertson, b) Fred Phelps, or c) The Advocate?   (advocate.com) divider line 214
    More: Interesting, Matthew Shepard, Mckinney, LGBT rights organizations, murders, Hate Crimes Prevention Act  
•       •       •

2604 clicks; posted to Politics » on 16 Sep 2013 at 10:33 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



214 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-09-16 03:39:27 PM

Phinn: I'm making a comment on how ideas like "hate crimes" come into being.


That was an awfully long-winded way of saying "I don't know what hate crime laws actually are".
 
2013-09-16 03:53:09 PM

Phinn: They are enacted because of a large number of people who live inside a Cartoon-Realty Bubble, wherein they believe the world is a mean, scary place, where (for example) black women are being accosted left, right and center for straying into the wrong side of town.


Hate crime laws punish people who commit violent crimes for reasons of discrimination. The victims race, religion and (depending on the state) sexuality aren't the issue. It's the criminals intent that matters. But you knew this.

Phinn: My point (since you asked) is that the MEDIA respond to incidents according to the MEDIA TRACTION they can get with certain story lines, not with actual reality.


The media played that angle because this is what the killers themselves said. But you knew this.
 
2013-09-16 03:58:15 PM
R.I.P. Sheppard
Ronon Dex and Teyla will have your revenege
 
2013-09-16 03:58:33 PM
Good for me I did not know a lot of the facts outside of Matt Shepard was murdered. Seems indisputable.
 
2013-09-16 04:00:44 PM

Phinn: That is, it wasn't part of the definition of a crime up until the point when Proggies started re-writing the criminal law to express their political fee-fees and their smug-but-warped sense of ethics.


Aren't you just adorable!
 
2013-09-16 04:05:19 PM

Phinn: That is, it wasn't part of the definition of a crime up until the point when Proggies started re-writing the criminal law to express their political fee-fees and their smug-but-warped sense of ethics.


Those darn proggies and their pantoozlers, floofloopers, and tartinkers! And don't get me started on their zuzithercarzays! They're almost as bad as their whocarnioflunxs.
 
2013-09-16 04:05:29 PM

lockers: Phinn: They are enacted because of a large number of people who live inside a Cartoon-Realty Bubble, wherein they believe the world is a mean, scary place, where (for example) black women are being accosted left, right and center for straying into the wrong side of town.

Hate crime laws punish people who commit violent crimes for reasons of discrimination. The victims race, religion and (depending on the state) sexuality aren't the issue. It's the criminals intent that matters. But you knew this.

Phinn: My point (since you asked) is that the MEDIA respond to incidents according to the MEDIA TRACTION they can get with certain story lines, not with actual reality.

The media played that angle because this is what the killers themselves said. But you knew this.


As was said above, the truth was reported on the early version of the Internet in the 1990s, before blogs really existed. I distinctly remember the disparity between the media's version of events and the actual facts, as it was happening at the time. It was sort of like the Folklore Version of the Trayvon Martin shooting, and reality.

The Matthew Shepard Folklore is notable only because a new medium was developing at the time, which provided a long-overdue reality check on the Folklore Media.
 
2013-09-16 04:08:00 PM

Phinn: I distinctly remember the disparity between the media's version of events and the actual facts,


Where did you find these "actual facts"?
 
2013-09-16 04:11:20 PM

Phinn: And the reality is that stories about gay bashing get a lot more traction than white-bashing, even when the gay bashing incident turns out to be just a bunch of drug dealers.


And the fun part is, it can be a hate crime while ALSO being about a drug deal gone bad. And in the case you cited, prosecutors had the option to add a hate crime modifier, but didn't, and I'm sure you'll tell us why - like, if there was no or flimsy evidence, if there's no state hate-crime legislation and there's no reason for it to be a Federal case, if they're just the most anti-white people since Marcus Garvey...

Phinn: It's a fantasyland where WASP men are lurking under every rock, waiting for their golden opportunity to oppress someone for her Otherness.


It's also a fantasyland where no one is attacked for being The Other.

Now that we're done with the respective fantasies, can you tell me why we should turn a blind eye to bias crimes (which no one can deny the occurrence of)? Do you just not think it's as big a deal for the community as Rhenquist thought it was (and not just the X community, all of us)?

Are you just pissed because there haven't been headline-grabbing hate crimes cases against black defendants for attacking Whitey?
 
2013-09-16 04:17:26 PM

Phinn: My point is not to debate the existence of black-on-white crime, or compare it to the incidence of white-on-black crime.


And I should hope not, since racially-motivated crimes against black people far outweigh the racially-motivated crimes committed against white people. So if you're sensing that the former get more media coverage, the simple explanation would be that it's because one simply happens more often than the other, rather than there being some convoluted anti-white media conspiracy.
 
2013-09-16 04:20:55 PM

Phinn: And the reality is that stories about gay bashing get a lot more traction than white-bashing


So, despite the fact that there are there are two and a half times as many anti-gay crimes as there are anti-white crimes a year, white people are the real victims here.
 
2013-09-16 04:23:57 PM
UrukHaiGuyz: Marshal805: Judaical

Wut. Is that like
Sharia Sherry  law? :)

FTFtheguyIheardsayexactlythatyesterday
 
2013-09-16 04:27:14 PM

someonelse: Phinn: I distinctly remember the disparity between the media's version of events and the actual facts,

Where did you find these "actual facts"?


I don't remember. It's been 15 years. It took longer than I expected for something like TFA to be written, though.

I also remember the early Internet being a source of unorthodox info about TWA Flight 800. Not too long ago, 6 of the original investigators started giving interviews and contributing to a documentary about how flawed and politicized the investigation was. It only took 14 years.

At the time, the Internet was treated like the National Enquirer. It wasn't until the DNA results came back on Monica Lewinsky's blue dress that the Internet was considered a potentially viable source of the heretical information that "journalists" deem unworthy of dissemination.

I had a lot of hope for the Internet, as an enlightening force in society. Bur the Zimmerman threads pretty much convinced me that most people, even moderately intelligent people, insist on believing the propaganda that's packaged for their consumption. People are not just deluded. They're willfully deluded. They like the lies. They will fight to preserve the Folklore Version they're being fed.
 
2013-09-16 04:28:42 PM

Biological Ali: Phinn: My point is not to debate the existence of black-on-white crime, or compare it to the incidence of white-on-black crime.

And I should hope not, since racially-motivated crimes against black people far outweigh the racially-motivated crimes committed against white people. So if you're sensing that the former get more media coverage, the simple explanation would be that it's because one simply happens more often than the other, rather than there being some convoluted anti-white media conspiracy.



Just fyi, that chart self-selects hate crimes specifically as already defined by the us gov.  It's tautological when discussing causes and definitions for classifications.
 
2013-09-16 04:33:12 PM

BafflerMeal: Biological Ali: Phinn: My point is not to debate the existence of black-on-white crime, or compare it to the incidence of white-on-black crime.

And I should hope not, since racially-motivated crimes against black people far outweigh the racially-motivated crimes committed against white people. So if you're sensing that the former get more media coverage, the simple explanation would be that it's because one simply happens more often than the other, rather than there being some convoluted anti-white media conspiracy.


Just fyi, that chart self-selects hate crimes specifically as already defined by the us gov.  It's tautological when discussing causes and definitions for classifications.


Folklore tends to be self-referential. That characteristic is what helps turn Story Time into a fully-functional, permanent way of life for some people.
 
2013-09-16 04:33:38 PM

BafflerMeal: Just fyi, that chart self-selects hate crimes specifically as already defined by the us gov.  It's tautological when discussing causes and definitions for classifications.


You've typed a lot of words in there but I have yet to discern what, if anything, you're trying to say.
 
2013-09-16 04:37:24 PM

Biological Ali: BafflerMeal: Just fyi, that chart self-selects hate crimes specifically as already defined by the us gov.  It's tautological when discussing causes and definitions for classifications.

You've typed a lot of words in there but I have yet to discern what, if anything, you're trying to say.


It means that your statistics are unreliable.

I'm sure you exhibit a healthy skepticism toward statistics that don't confirm your worldview. But you'll accept these without hesitation? That's not very smart.
 
2013-09-16 04:38:46 PM

Phinn: Folklore tends to be self-referential. That characteristic is what helps turn Story Time into a fully-functional, permanent way of life for some people.


Has this thread turned into an impromptu slam poetry exhibition or something?
 
2013-09-16 04:44:53 PM

Phinn: Biological Ali: BafflerMeal: Just fyi, that chart self-selects hate crimes specifically as already defined by the us gov.  It's tautological when discussing causes and definitions for classifications.

You've typed a lot of words in there but I have yet to discern what, if anything, you're trying to say.

It means that your statistics are unreliable.

I'm sure you exhibit a healthy skepticism toward statistics that don't confirm your worldview. But you'll accept these without hesitation? That's not very smart.


How exactly are the statistics "unreliable"? Are you suggesting that there's some slew of anti-white hate crimes that aren't being recorded, or that there's some large number of crimes that have wrongly been determined to be racially motivated when they actually aren't?
 
2013-09-16 04:45:37 PM

Biological Ali: Phinn: Folklore tends to be self-referential. That characteristic is what helps turn Story Time into a fully-functional, permanent way of life for some people.

Has this thread turned into an impromptu slam poetry exhibition or something?


Your confusion is an effect of rationality intruding on your well-practiced habit of exercising your confirmation bias. I'm sure it's very disorienting for you.

Go back to your cocoon. It's nice and comfy in there.
 
2013-09-16 04:46:35 PM
Can I just mention Hitler and end this?
 
2013-09-16 04:50:08 PM

Phinn: Your confusion is an effect of rationality intruding on your well-practiced habit of exercising your confirmation bias. I'm sure it's very disorienting for you.

Go back to your cocoon. It's nice and comfy in there.


Now you're just stringing together buzzwords into sentences that are vaguely insulting but don't really say anything at all.
 
2013-09-16 04:51:09 PM

comhcinc: Can I just mention Hitler and end this?


 mypetjawa.mu.nu
 
2013-09-16 04:53:24 PM

BafflerMeal: comhcinc: Can I just mention Hitler and end this?

 [mypetjawa.mu.nu image 250x256]


Nice.
 
2013-09-16 04:55:26 PM

Biological Ali: How exactly are the statistics "unreliable"? Are you suggesting that there's some slew of anti-white hate crimes that aren't being recorded, or that there's some large number of crimes that have wrongly been determined to be racially motivated when they actually aren't?


Because, if there is anything we all know, the criminal justice system is extremely biased against white people and furthermore.
 
2013-09-16 04:59:05 PM

friday13: under a mountain: Mikey1969: FarkedOver: comhcinc: I hate that kid died. I hate it when anyone is murdered, but I am disturbed by the ideas of hate crimes. People have the right to think whatever bigoted stupid thing they want to think. We should prosecute the crime not the thought behind the crime.

We already do prosecute based on the thought.  If we didn't there would be no distinction between manslaughter and murder 1.

It's not "thought", it's your actions to put your plan of murder into reality. You can still plan a murder, and you won't get arrested if nobody ever kills the person.

Tell that to this guy.Or Manson

Methinks you missed a rather important point there, my friend.


Yes, yes i did.
/Hangs head in shame
 
2013-09-16 05:17:00 PM

lockers: Biological Ali: How exactly are the statistics "unreliable"? Are you suggesting that there's some slew of anti-white hate crimes that aren't being recorded, or that there's some large number of crimes that have wrongly been determined to be racially motivated when they actually aren't?

Because, if there is anything we all know, the criminal justice system is extremely biased against white people and furthermore.


The federal government gives large amounts of taxpayer money to the DOJ and state/local law enforcement for its activities in responding to "hate crimes."

And violence against women.

Ordinary crime against white males doesn't flip the switches that dispense as much federal money.

The system is institutionslly biased in favor of finding as many hate crimes (against non-whites and women) as possible.

These facts are not a conspiracy theory. They're right out in the open. They do not prove that the FBI statistics are wrong. But they do make the statistics unreliable. The government provides an incentive to distort, in the form of tax money for identifying politically-approved crime patterns.

If the government gave doctors 10% more money for every case of autism they reported, there would be a sharp uptick in autism statistics.
 
2013-09-16 05:24:22 PM

Phinn: lockers: Biological Ali: How exactly are the statistics "unreliable"? Are you suggesting that there's some slew of anti-white hate crimes that aren't being recorded, or that there's some large number of crimes that have wrongly been determined to be racially motivated when they actually aren't?

Because, if there is anything we all know, the criminal justice system is extremely biased against white people and furthermore.

The federal government gives large amounts of taxpayer money to the DOJ and state/local law enforcement for its activities in responding to "hate crimes."

And violence against women.

Ordinary crime against white males doesn't flip the switches that dispense as much federal money.

The system is institutionslly biased in favor of finding as many hate crimes (against non-whites and women) as possible.

These facts are not a conspiracy theory. They're right out in the open. They do not prove that the FBI statistics are wrong. But they do make the statistics unreliable. The government provides an incentive to distort, in the form of tax money for identifying politically-approved crime patterns.

If the government gave doctors 10% more money for every case of autism they reported, there would be a sharp uptick in autism statistics.



You keep using that word. Yet you do not provide any actual facts.
 
2013-09-16 05:32:55 PM

someonelse: Phinn: lockers: Biological Ali: How exactly are the statistics "unreliable"? Are you suggesting that there's some slew of anti-white hate crimes that aren't being recorded, or that there's some large number of crimes that have wrongly been determined to be racially motivated when they actually aren't?

Because, if there is anything we all know, the criminal justice system is extremely biased against white people and furthermore.

The federal government gives large amounts of taxpayer money to the DOJ and state/local law enforcement for its activities in responding to "hate crimes."

And violence against women.

Ordinary crime against white males doesn't flip the switches that dispense as much federal money.

The system is institutionslly biased in favor of finding as many hate crimes (against non-whites and women) as possible.

These facts are not a conspiracy theory. They're right out in the open. They do not prove that the FBI statistics are wrong. But they do make the statistics unreliable. The government provides an incentive to distort, in the form of tax money for identifying politically-approved crime patterns.

If the government gave doctors 10% more money for every case of autism they reported, there would be a sharp uptick in autism statistics.


You keep using that word. Yet you do not provide any actual facts.


The appropriation and grants of federal money to agencies, based on their statistical reporting, is a fact. It is usually sold to the public as a self-congratulatory good thing -- "We're fighting hate!"

But that system of funding also necessarily introduces perverse incentives, as it would in any other context. When the federal government gives more tax money to schools based on its annual testing, there is an increased rate of cheating, by the teachers and administrators, in an effort to qualify for more money.

The dividing line between hate crime and regular crime is particularly vague and prone to abuse, and thus even less reliable than the NCLB school grading system.
 
2013-09-16 05:43:26 PM
 
2013-09-16 05:48:34 PM

dittybopper: It seems to me that the motivation for a particular crime is largely irrelevant, and in fact hate crime legislation is verging uncomfortably close to thought crime. It's just one small leap to go from "punishing someone extra for their thoughts" to "punishing someone for their thoughts". And that's one solid, bright line you just don't *EVER* want to cross as a society. But we're crowding up against it.



It's not punishing for thoughts.  There has to be some outward objective manifestation.


Is painting "San Dimas High School Football Rules!" on a bridge the same thing as painting swastikas on a synagogue?
 
2013-09-16 05:55:11 PM

Cheron: I guess being beaten and left to slowly die alone is OK if meth was involved.


Yeah, why does it matter what the motive was if the end result is "victim pistol-whipped and left unconscious to die of exposure on a fence" except that meth heads make even less sense than bigots?
 
2013-09-16 06:05:34 PM

bikerific: dittybopper: It seems to me that the motivation for a particular crime is largely irrelevant, and in fact hate crime legislation is verging uncomfortably close to thought crime. It's just one small leap to go from "punishing someone extra for their thoughts" to "punishing someone for their thoughts". And that's one solid, bright line you just don't *EVER* want to cross as a society. But we're crowding up against it.


It's not punishing for thoughts.  There has to be some outward objective manifestation.


Is painting "San Dimas High School Football Rules!" on a bridge the same thing as painting swastikas on a synagogue?


I would say yes. Both are property damage, but I do see a difference with intent. Let's say both groups of kids where caught breaking the law. I have no issue with charging the kids spray painting the bridge to two week of community service while the kids who painted the synagogue with getting six month of community service plus a visit to the holocaust museum. The law as it stands allows us to deal with a difference. My question to you do you think it is necessary to charge those kids at the synagogue with a federal crime?
 
2013-09-16 06:09:04 PM

Biological Ali: Phinn: The system is institutionslly biased in favor of finding as many hate crimes (against non-whites and women) as possible.

Meanwhile, in reality:

The Hate Crime Statistics Program of the FBI's Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program collects data regarding criminal offenses that are motivated, in whole or in part, by the offender's bias against a race, religion, sexual orientation, ethnicity/national origin, or disability and are committed against persons, property, or society. (Forthcoming system changes will also allow the future collection of data for crimes motivated by gender and gender identity as well as data about crimes committed by, and crimes directed against, juveniles.) Because motivation is subjective, it is sometimes difficult to know with certainty whether a crime resulted from the offender's bias. Moreover, the presence of bias alone does not necessarily mean that a crime can be considered a hate crime. Only when law enforcement investigation reveals sufficient evidence to lead a reasonable and prudent person to conclude that the offender's actions were motivated, in whole or in part, by his or her bias, should an incident be reported as a hate crime.

If anything, the high burden of proof means that the actual rates of hate crimes are being under-reported in these statistics.


There is no proof required to include any particular incident in the reporting. It's subjective. And these events are reported by one interested party to another interested party, and are not independently verified.

But sure, it's still 100% reliably accurate. Seems legit.

Hey, did you hear about the Miami School Police Department and the fallout from the Trayvon Martin shooting and trial? It turns out that a lawsuit ensued, and the school police chief either resigned or was fired. It turns out that he was pressuring his subordinates to under-report the crimes committed by black males, so as to give a phony boost to his success record and to keep the offenders (including one named Trayvon) out of the criminal justice system. Big scandal. Heads rolled.
 
2013-09-16 06:10:51 PM

GoldSpider: Mikey1969: He originally pleaded the gay panic defense, arguing that he and Henderson were driven to temporary insanity by alleged sexual advances by Shepard.

Which, according to the article, was not true.


Where does it say that?
 
2013-09-16 06:15:31 PM

Phinn: Hey, did you hear about


Tipped your hand there. Now I know you've been pulling my leg all along.

I don't know what exactly you get out of pretending to be an idiot in front of strangers on the internet, but I strongly recommend that you find a more meaningful and worthwhile hobby.
 
2013-09-16 06:17:42 PM

Phinn: Biological Ali: Phinn: The system is institutionslly biased in favor of finding as many hate crimes (against non-whites and women) as possible.

Meanwhile, in reality:

The Hate Crime Statistics Program of the FBI's Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program collects data regarding criminal offenses that are motivated, in whole or in part, by the offender's bias against a race, religion, sexual orientation, ethnicity/national origin, or disability and are committed against persons, property, or society. (Forthcoming system changes will also allow the future collection of data for crimes motivated by gender and gender identity as well as data about crimes committed by, and crimes directed against, juveniles.) Because motivation is subjective, it is sometimes difficult to know with certainty whether a crime resulted from the offender's bias. Moreover, the presence of bias alone does not necessarily mean that a crime can be considered a hate crime. Only when law enforcement investigation reveals sufficient evidence to lead a reasonable and prudent person to conclude that the offender's actions were motivated, in whole or in part, by his or her bias, should an incident be reported as a hate crime.

If anything, the high burden of proof means that the actual rates of hate crimes are being under-reported in these statistics.

There is no proof required to include any particular incident in the reporting. It's subjective. And these events are reported by one interested party to another interested party, and are not independently verified.

But sure, it's still 100% reliably accurate. Seems legit.

Hey, did you hear about the Miami School Police Department and the fallout from the Trayvon Martin shooting and trial? It turns out that a lawsuit ensued, and the school police chief either resigned or was fired. It turns out that he was pressuring his subordinates to under-report the crimes committed by black males, so as to give a phony boost to his success record and to keep the offenders (including one named Trayvon) out of the criminal justice system. Big scandal. Heads rolled.


You are telling the absolute truth, without a single lie to be found.

Of course, the lawsuit was for sexual harassment, and nothing at all to do with Trayvon Martin, but it is factually correct that there was a lawsuit. You win two Internets for not being a liar!
 
2013-09-16 06:36:41 PM

Biological Ali: Phinn: Hey, did you hear about

Tipped your hand there. Now I know you've been pulling my leg all along.

I don't know what exactly you get out of pretending to be an idiot in front of strangers on the internet, but I strongly recommend that you find a more meaningful and worthwhile hobby.


You've said nothing to demonstrate the reliability of the statistics you cited. You haven't even tried. You've said nothing to overcome the problems that arise from the (admitted) inherent subjectivity of the matter being reported, the lack of impartiality of those doing the reporting, the outright financial and political incentives to systematically engage in distortion, and lack of independent verification.

You stink at this reasoning thing.
 
2013-09-16 07:00:59 PM

Phinn: You've said


It's poor form to keep trying to troll somebody who's already figured out that you're trolling. It's desperate and pathetic, even by troll standards.
 
2013-09-16 07:26:34 PM

Biological Ali: Phinn: You've said

It's poor form to keep trying to troll somebody who's already figured out that you're trolling. It's desperate and pathetic, even by troll standards.


You're awfully invested in your opinions. Notice how you keep avoiding the facts and your rhetorical/cognitive failures, and yet keep steering the conversation back to yourself and your own point of view.

You must be a Millenial. Only Millenials and Baby Boomers exhibit your level of self-absorption.
 
2013-09-16 07:52:58 PM

Phinn: You're awfully


Are you under the impression that if you keep trolling me long enough, I'll somehow magically forget that you're a troll? Or are you putting on this act for somebody else?

Honestly, it seems like your evening would be better spent if you just stopped trolling this thread and did something else instead.
 
2013-09-16 08:01:31 PM
Just get a room you two : )
/Maybe Phinn just really wants attention from a man.
//NTTATWWT
 
2013-09-16 08:07:03 PM

comhcinc: I hate that kid died. I hate it when anyone is murdered, but I am disturbed by the ideas of hate crimes. People have the right to think whatever bigoted stupid thing they want to think. We should prosecute the crime not the thought behind the crime.


A large number of Farkers likely agree with you (have not read whole thread). I'm as libtard as they come but I don't see the sense in classifying crimes based on the target. Murder is murder, so prosecute it accordingly.
 
2013-09-16 08:24:58 PM

dickfreckle: comhcinc: I hate that kid died. I hate it when anyone is murdered, but I am disturbed by the ideas of hate crimes. People have the right to think whatever bigoted stupid thing they want to think. We should prosecute the crime not the thought behind the crime.

A large number of Farkers likely agree with you (have not read whole thread). I'm as libtard as they come but I don't see the sense in classifying crimes based on the target. Murder is murder, so prosecute it accordingly.


It's not based on the target so much as it's based on motive.  We have a long history of looking at why people commit crimes and for what reasons in the context of the crimes they commit.
 
2013-09-16 08:33:12 PM
Phinn really augered this baby right into the ground, didn't he.
 
2013-09-16 08:49:34 PM

dickfreckle: comhcinc: I hate that kid died. I hate it when anyone is murdered, but I am disturbed by the ideas of hate crimes. People have the right to think whatever bigoted stupid thing they want to think. We should prosecute the crime not the thought behind the crime.

A large number of Farkers likely agree with you (have not read whole thread). I'm as libtard as they come but I don't see the sense in classifying crimes based on the target. Murder is murder, so prosecute it accordingly.


I will label you as a liberal and we will see how that goes. Just for clarity:


A) Can the state provide service better than the corporations can?


B) Is obama right left or center?


C) was the Terry Schiavo case, where she got unplugged a bad thing?;

 
2013-09-16 09:24:31 PM

lockers: dickfreckle: comhcinc: I hate that kid died. I hate it when anyone is murdered, but I am disturbed by the ideas of hate crimes. People have the right to think whatever bigoted stupid thing they want to think. We should prosecute the crime not the thought behind the crime.

A large number of Farkers likely agree with you (have not read whole thread). I'm as libtard as they come but I don't see the sense in classifying crimes based on the target. Murder is murder, so prosecute it accordingly.

I will label you as a liberal and we will see how that goes. Just for clarity:
A) Can the state provide service better than the corporations can?
B) Is obama right left or center?
C) was the Terry Schiavo case, where she got unplugged a bad thing?;


What? OK:

The state gets the benefit of the doubt because they are largely not motivated by profit. They're not perfect, but they're not evil.

Obama is center-right. He's left on some issues only when public opinion suggests he should be. I voted for him twice because I don't feel he'll destroy the country even if he doesn't accomplish some things I'd like to see (single-payer, for example).

The Schiavo case was among dumbest things I ever saw.

Now, just because I don't dig on hate crime attachments does not mean I'm not a libtard. We're not following a cookbook here. Each of us are entitled to opinions not necessarily shared by everyone in the group. The wording of your post makes me feel that you don't get that we don't have to be in lock-step. It's not the GOP.
 
2013-09-16 09:54:50 PM

dickfreckle: Now, just because I don't dig on hate crime attachments does not mean I'm not a libtard. We're not following a cookbook here. Each of us are entitled to opinions not necessarily shared by everyone in the group. The wording of your post makes me feel that you don't get that we don't have to be in lock-step. It's not the GOP.


Okay so you're sorta liberal but don't believe hate crime exist or has existed. So I'm gonna guess you're not part of a minority that has been persecuted. I'm in the LGBT camp myself and well keeping this somewhat on topic I always figured Matthew Shepard knew his killers and there was always rumors about some kind of drugs. The fact that the defense used "gay panic" as a reasonable defense was disgusting at the time even though I guess somewhere it was successful.And those guys weren't charged with hate crime to my understanding they didn't exist yet.

FTFA: President Obama, who signed the Hate Crimes Prevention Act, named for Shepard and James Byrd Jr., into law on October 28, 2009, credited Judy Shepard for making him "passionate" about LGBT equality.

Also you may wanna look into something that happen I believe around that time a black male being dragged by a rope or chain attached to a pick-up truck in Texas.

/I was crazy back then, it's gotten a bit better.
 
2013-09-16 10:07:48 PM
Opp' I meant to say 'It was crazy back then" but I guuess I was a bit crazy hell I was doing coke and meth as well at the club.

Oh, and if I recall correctly Mattew Shepards funeral was one of the first big appearances for the Westboro folks. The family and other mourners wear shielded from the protest by people in angel costumes. Maybe that is where someone got the wrong idea Matthew Sheppard was some kind of saint. It was just another killing in a long line of killings that finally made national news.
 
2013-09-16 10:55:42 PM

tinfoil-hat maggie: dickfreckle: Now, just because I don't dig on hate crime attachments does not mean I'm not a libtard. We're not following a cookbook here. Each of us are entitled to opinions not necessarily shared by everyone in the group. The wording of your post makes me feel that you don't get that we don't have to be in lock-step. It's not the GOP.

Okay so you're sorta liberal but don't believe hate crime exist or has existed. So I'm gonna guess you're not part of a minority that has been persecuted. I'm in the LGBT camp myself and well keeping this somewhat on topic I always figured Matthew Shepard knew his killers and there was always rumors about some kind of drugs. The fact that the defense used "gay panic" as a reasonable defense was disgusting at the time even though I guess somewhere it was successful.And those guys weren't charged with hate crime to my understanding they didn't exist yet.

FTFA: President Obama, who signed the Hate Crimes Prevention Act, named for Shepard and James Byrd Jr., into law on October 28, 2009, credited Judy Shepard for making him "passionate" about LGBT equality.

Also you may wanna look into something that happen I believe around that time a black male being dragged by a rope or chain attached to a pick-up truck in Texas.

/I was crazy back then, it's gotten a bit better.


I have to agree with spotted dick here and I think you might be misunderstanding him. I also don't agree with hate-crime laws, not because I don't agree that hate crimes don't exist--because obviously they DO, and very virulently in a variety of flavors--but because the "laws" that exist to prosecute them are so slippery and difficult to define and in many cases start stepping on first amendment rights even as they try to prevent the kind of revolting crimes you mention.

The problem with hate-crime laws is that by their nature they are extremely subjective (duh) and depend entirely on a postulated relationship between the attacker and the victim (duh, again) that has to be proven by the prosecution (because duh #3--the burden is on the prosecutor) based on things that may or may not objectively exist. Which can be problematic IF the crime was in fact motivated by hate but those things weren't there; OR if those things were there yet the crime wasn't in fact motivated by "hate."

For instance: a real case in Santa Monica. Two boys got in a scuffle in a cafeteria that was occasioned by one spilling milk on the other, and erupted into a full on brawl. In the fight, racial slurs were exchanged, since one boy was black and the other Hispanic. Hate crime? Probably not, but it was prosecuted as such, since one of those markers I mentioned is the "use of racial slurs in the course of the crime." So two teenagers fighting over a place in a lunch line is now a "hate crime."

Hypothetical: A known racist beats a black man who owes him money. He manages not to utter any racial slurs during the beating, and when caught says it's because the guy owed him $50. Hate crime? If not, why not? If so, why? Change the facts so that the attacker is a known racist who DOES utter racial slurs, but the victim does in fact owe him $50. Still a hate crime? Change the facts again so the black man is the attacker and he calls the racist victim a "dirty k*ke." Hate crime? What if he's owed the $50?

Better, in my mind, if cases are simply treated as what they are--violent personal crimes and judged accordingly. If you beat someone for no reason, it's aggravated battery. If you drag someone to death behind your pickup truck, then it's first degree murder with aggravating circumstances like torture or extreme heinousness. If you trespass on someone's property to light a burning torch--it's trespass plus arson and terroristic threats. The options exist, and we should take advantage of them instead of creating other and more difficult crimes to prosecute.
 
Displayed 50 of 214 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report