Why have so many american problem with abortion of small americans...but no Problem

[DarkCoffeeJazz]

See, that sort of thing is just silly. If such crimes are being tried as "hate crimes" then I don't agree with that. I feel that "hate crimes" are very, very specific things, like crimes committed by KKK members motivated by their hate for minorities.

If someone gets in a fight with a person who happens to be of another race, that isn't a "hate crime" and shouldn't be treated like one. I also believe that "Freedom of Speech" allows for people who are hateful, like the KKK, to have their say as well. But I'm all for the clowns who have used their freedom of speech to mock such hateful groups.

Fine, I'm tired and rambling and can't stay on topic to save my life, I'll go to bed.

At least someone else sees the problem with "hate" crimes, at least our versions of those laws. They are exploitable, I believe, but at least you see there are circumstances that don't fall under these "laws" just because "they were of different races".
Thanks. I needed to be sure I wasn't the only one who thought it was silly. (The part where you mention silly anyway, and in context. Yes, I'm rambling).

 

[DarkCoffeeJazz]

You said:

Murder is murder. How heinous it was doesn't matter; a life was taken. They are equal, so why not treat them equally? (#295)

As I said earlier, the grammatical structure does not clearly allow to determine what the "they" was meant to refer. There´s no noun in the pluralwhich "they" could refer to, and the last noun before "they" was "life".
It´s quite possible you meant the "they" to refer to "murder(s)", though. In which case the fact that you determine the equality of two actions with reference to the equality of their results ("a life was taken. They are equal...") leads to the same problem:

If you want to argue by 'the result - a life is taken - is the same, therefore we needn´t take a closer look at the circumstances, we don´t need further differenciation, we can ignore the details, the motives, the intentions', then performing the death penalty is equal to murder, by your own argument.

Whilst if you want to argue for the death penalty the "a life was taken. They [The actions causing this result? The lives taken? The takings of the lives?] are equal" shoots your own foot.

Ah I see. I meant murder is the same. They meant to refer to the results of murder. I apologize.

 

[WatersMoon110]

At least someone else sees the problem with "hate" crimes, at least our versions of those laws. They are exploitable, I believe, but at least you see there are circumstances that don't fall under these "laws" just because "they were of different races".
Thanks. I needed to be sure I wasn't the only one who thought it was silly. (The part where you mention silly anyway, and in context. Yes, I'm rambling).

I'm glad that we clarified this. I have a very specific idea of what a "hate crime" is, and I am glad to know that it isn't that other people don't agree that those few crimes (done by KKK members, and the like) aren't "hate crimes". It is just that there are many situations where "hate crime" is claimed that simply are not what I would call a "hate crime".

I mean to say, I'm glad to know that many people don't really believe that "hate crimes" don't exist. We actually agree that very few actual "hate crimes" are going on.

I also somewhat understand the worry that some people have, that many things that aren't crimes (like things covered under freedom of speech) might be eventually tried as "hate crimes". I hope that such a thing never happens, because one of the things I love about the US is that we allow everyone the freedom to speak their mind (within reason - no shouting "fire" in crowded theaters). I would hate to see such am important right be lost, for any reason.

That was also totally rambling.

 

[DarkCoffeeJazz]

WEll, I don't totally agree with the whole "hate crimes exist" part... under the current definition I dunno, really.
I believe there's more hate involved in certain crimes than others, but all crimes are nonetheless not committed out of true love for one's neighbor, correct?
Thus it is committed out of hate.
And I'm against racism, btw. Let's clarify that one, just in case.
(believe me, you'd be surprised how misunderstood I can be sometimes, haha. Away from this forum that is.)

 

[WatersMoon110]

WEll, I don't totally agree with the whole "hate crimes exist" part... under the current definition I dunno, really.
I believe there's more hate involved in certain crimes than others, but all crimes are nonetheless not committed out of true love for one's neighbor, correct?
Thus it is committed out of hate.
And I'm against racism, btw. Let's clarify that one, just in case.
(believe me, you'd be surprised how misunderstood I can be sometimes, haha. Away from this forum that is.)

There is another thing we agree on, we both are against racism. *grin*

Seriously, though, I think that while many crimes are motivated by hate, there are some (like the KKK guy I linked) where hate for a certain group, or groups, of people are the main motive.

I can understand why many people wanted hate crime legislation past. I really don't know if it was needed, but I understand why we have it currently. I mean, I probably wouldn't have thought of it, had such a law not been passed Federally in '94 (and in most States and DC since then, I think). I mean, almost everything that is considered a hate crime is already a crime, isn't it?

 

[DarkCoffeeJazz]

Yah, that's always been my argument, actually. Those laws are pointless, IMO. Yes, I know the why of them. But I do not see them as being very effective......

POKEMONS...
Hate Crimes Legislation used Vagueness!
It's not very effective...

DarkCoffeeJazz used Logic!
IT'S SUPER EFFECTIVE!

Hate Crimes Legislation faints!

Sorry had to do it.