California and Mob Rule

[Q Classic]

I can already predict one of his counterarguments, actually, which is that sometimes violence against gays is unrelated to their sexuality but mistakenly gets classified as a hate crime anyway. But even if the mistaken incident rate is 1%, or 10%, or 20%, that's still well over a thousand violent acts against against gays every single year.

He could also make the counterargument that most of these hate crime are probably not literal lynchings, but then my rebuttal would be to laugh at him.

A third point is that hate crimes against gays do happen with much less frequency than hate crimes motivated by race - 16.6% versus 50.8%. But for that I lean back on the fact that there are fewer gays than blacks, gays are harder to spot than blacks, and again, the true number is likely underrepresented due to lack of hate crime legislation and an unwillingness of victims to come forward.

Actually, you idiots are wrong. Being homosexual is clearly an unhealthy lifestyle because it invites people to engage in hate crimes against you.

[Imran Siddiqui]

It does fundamentally change the state Constitution, the reason the court doesn't see it as changing much about the govt is because the govt was already discriminating against gays - no change there. This is a case of the govt ignoring what the Constitution says and the court using that "precedent" (like how Social Security has become constitutional by longstanding practice) to justify changing the Constitution to fit with the govt's practices.

It really doesn't. Unless you are prepared to say the entire initiative process "fundamentally change the state Constitution" and I doubt the initiative amendemnt process was created to be non-functional.

And: "the reason the court doesn't see it as changing much about the govt is because the govt was already discriminating against gays" - Not true at all. The California Supreme Court ruled that Equal Protection Clause meant gay marriage had to be performed. So the state was NOT discriminating against gays when Proposition 8 was passed.

There actually was a reason that this challenge was considered a legal long shot.

[Arrian]

What issue do you think CA voters should deal with then?

Clearly I meant a revisit of the issue addressed by Prop8. Clearly, I think the voters of CA got it wrong on Prop8, and will fix it in the future.

Did you actually derive some sort of pleasure from being obtuse about it?

-Arrian

[Edan]

So, there's been 1 in this decade so far?

That's roughly equal to the rate for black people even now. That's honestly a negligible rate.

Put it this way, from 1940-1965, there were over 200 lynchings of black people in the US.

You can take a look at the statistics. It averages about 3 murders a year. Or put it another way, that would mean about 78 murders for a 26 year period like that.

[Lorizael]

Actually, you idiots are wrong. Being homosexual is clearly an unhealthy lifestyle because it invites people to engage in hate crimes against you.

Shh, let's wait for him to respond. Also, remove the personal attacks from this post.

[Drake Tungsten]

Lynching dne murder.

[Lorizael]

Lynching dne murder.

[Drake Tungsten]

I'm right.

Lynching is an extrajudicial punishment meted by a mob.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynching

Lynchings are more worrisome and telling than murders because the community at large tacitly endorses the action.

[Lorizael]

Edit: I've been DanSed.

True, but one of suspected reasons why many gays are unwilling to come forward when they are subject to hate crimes is the fact that they're afraid the community and law enforcement system won't defend them. That's equally worrisome.

[Drake Tungsten]

That's equally worrisome.

No, it isn't. Roving mobs summarily executing black people is a hell of a lot more worrisome than gay people keeping quiet about non-fatal attacks because of a possibly misguided belief that the police won't defend them.

[Krill]

Shh, let's wait for him to respond. Also, remove the personal attacks from this post.

I disagree with this. Yes it is a personal attack, but ultimately no more of an attack than BK saying that lynching some folks is accceptable.

Certainly, Q is more in your face about it, but BKs is much more insidious.

[Q Classic]

Shh, let's wait for him to respond. Also, remove the personal attacks from this post.

I thought you were going to delete it?

Edit: I cut the last line.

[Lorizael]

I disagree with this. Yes it is a personal attack, but ultimately no more of an attack than BK saying that lynching some folks is accceptable.

Certainly, Q is more in your face about it, but BKs is much more insidious.

I'm not sure that I've ever seen Ben Kenobi make a personal attack against another poster. He believes some pretty terrible things, but he doesn't direct attacks against other posters. I've also never seen him say that lynchings are acceptable.

I thought you were going to delete it?

Edit: I cut the last line.

Oh. Then there was some confusion. It was originally deleted by another staff member, but I didn't want it to remain that way because I don't approve of deleting posts. I'd much rather if you simply agree not to post personal attacks.

Edit: And thanks for cooperating.

[Ben Kenobi]

People being killed isn't what makes them second class citizens, it's an effect of their second class status.

I'm saying from a statistical standpoint, there's a significant difference between 1 in the last decade, and 10 a year. Even when lynchings were trailing off in the 50s and 60s you still had around 5-10 a year even in the best years.

Honestly, I don't care if gay people can get married or not. Since I don't care, I see no reason why they shouldn't be allowed to marry.

Fair enough. You are honest about it and I respect that you don't call me a bigot for holding the opposite opinion. Thank you.

[Ben Kenobi]

I've also never seen him say that lynchings are acceptable.

Absolutely unacceptable. Which is why I'm glad that those who assaulted and killed the three mentioned were taken to trial and arrested.

I believe violence against anyone is wrong. I just don't believe that we should have special classes, where some crimes are deemed more heinious then others. If the problem is that assault is not prosecuted sufficiently, then that's the problem that needs to be fixed. I say that as a member of a special class, I do not want to be treated differently just because I have a disability.