True or false. People who complain about "hate crimes" being a thing probably want Muslim "bad guys" to suffer more

[Sava]

Right?

That extra little bit of Islamaphobia seems to mesh well with the kvetching over "OH MY GOD LIKE HATING SOMEONE MAKES A CRIME WORSE OHMGGGGGGG"

which... sure, I guess? complain we are too hard on crime?

wait

wat?

oh except if it is a muslim terrorist or something

then it is "never forget" all day

[N35t0r]

Banana.

Becasue blacks probably factor in somehow.

[Sava]

Indeed. I think racism against blacks (and bigotry against others) is the motivation behind every single complaint against "hate crimes".

Why else would someone be against punishing murderers?

It all sort of rolls together in a general hatred of being "politically correct".

Whiny children being told to behave because their mothers failed to do it when they were children.

[Sava]

Indeed. I think racism against blacks (and bigotry against others) is the motivation behind every single complaint against "hate crimes".

Why else would someone be against punishing murderers?

It all sort of rolls together in a general hatred of being "politically correct".

Whiny children being told to behave because their mothers failed to do it when they were children.

[Sava]

****ing JM all over your face today

poly

[N35t0r]

Banana.

Becasue blacks probably factor in somehow.

[loinburger]

Banana.

Becasue blacks probably factor in somehow.

[loinburger]

****ing hell, the JMs are starting to jump between accounts

[Lorizael]

Sava: Hmm, wouldn't it be nice if all the things I disliked about people were somehow combined into one super category of dislike? That would be so much easier. But I dislike so many people, so it's gonna take a lot of logical contortions to manufacture such a link. Nah, I'll just assume it's true instead. Wow, that was much easier. Nice. Now I'll reward my effort reduction by getting high.

[loinburger]

We already incorporate intent when judging a crime, hence the distinction between involuntary manslaughter and first degree murder; so I see nothing inconsistent between distinguishing between a hate crime and a non-hate crime. If the Sep 11 incident/atrocity/whatever noun you prefer had been caused by some disgruntled employees who were using an elaborate means of killing their co-workers then I don't think we'd remember it the same way and we probably wouldn't have gone to war over it ("probably" because the administration might have somehow used it as an excuse to go to war anyway).

I believe that it's inconsistent to have there be a hate crime when there is not a non-hate version of the crime. (I have no idea if this is the case anywhere, I'm not a lawyer, or IANAL if you prefer because I do like to take it up the butt from time to time.) For example, if I shout "**** you" to a random white person and suffer no punishment and then shout "**** you" to a random black person and am fined or whatever then I'd say that this is inconsistent; if I'm fined for both incidents but receive a greater fine for the latter then I'd say that this is consistent (maybe my intent was the same for both incidents, but the law can't read my mind and so I might wind up receiving a greater "hate crime" fine for the latter incident anyway; this could have been avoided by just not shouting "**** you" at random people).

Also banana.

[pchang]

hate crimes are still mostly against blacks.

[C0ckney]

We already incorporate intent when judging a crime, hence the distinction between involuntary manslaughter and first degree murder; so I see nothing inconsistent between distinguishing between a hate crime and a non-hate crime. If the Sep 11 incident/atrocity/whatever noun you prefer had been caused by some disgruntled employees who were using an elaborate means of killing their co-workers then I don't think we'd remember it the same way and we probably wouldn't have gone to war over it ("probably" because the administration might have somehow used it as an excuse to go to war anyway).

this is actually confusing two different things, intent and motive. for a crime to be committed there must be an intent to commit the criminal act itself. so, in a murder case a person must have an intent to kill or to seriously injure someone else, whereas for manslaughter a person intends to commit (or, in english law, i don't know about the US, is reckless about committing) some kind of illegal or grossly negligent act that ends up killing someone. motive is not relevant to intent; it's a separate consideration.

consider the following scenario: man a and man b are arguing in a bar about a football game, man a hits man b; a second scenario: man b walks into a bar and starts boasting loudly about how he has slept with man a's wife, man a then hits man b. in both cases there is intent on man a's part to hit man b; legally speaking it's the same act. what differs is the motive for doing so. most people would have more sympathy with man a in the second case. in the same way, hate crimes deal with motive, not intent.

[ZEE]

We already incorporate intent when judging a crime, hence the distinction between involuntary manslaughter and first degree murder; so I see nothing inconsistent between distinguishing between a hate crime and a non-hate crime. If the Sep 11 incident/atrocity/whatever noun you prefer had been caused by some disgruntled employees who were using an elaborate means of killing their co-workers then I don't think we'd remember it the same way and we probably wouldn't have gone to war over it ("probably" because the administration might have somehow used it as an excuse to go to war anyway).

I believe that it's inconsistent to have there be a hate crime when there is not a non-hate version of the crime. (I have no idea if this is the case anywhere, I'm not a lawyer, or IANAL if you prefer because I do like to take it up the butt from time to time.) For example, if I shout "**** you" to a random white person and suffer no punishment and then shout "**** you" to a random black person and am fined or whatever then I'd say that this is inconsistent; if I'm fined for both incidents but receive a greater fine for the latter then I'd say that this is consistent (maybe my intent was the same for both incidents, but the law can't read my mind and so I might wind up receiving a greater "hate crime" fine for the latter incident anyway; this could have been avoided by just not shouting "**** you" at random people).

Also banana.

this is actually confusing two different things, intent and motive. for a crime to be committed there must be an intent to commit the criminal act itself. so, in a murder case a person must have an intent to kill or to seriously injure someone else, whereas for manslaughter a person intends to commit (or, in english law, i don't know about the US, is reckless about committing) some kind of illegal or grossly negligent act that ends up killing someone. motive is not relevant to intent; it's a separate consideration.

consider the following scenario: man a and man b are arguing in a bar about a football game, man a hits man b; a second scenario: man b walks into a bar and starts boasting loudly about how he has slept with man a's wife, man a then hits man b. in both cases there is intent on man a's part to hit man b; legally speaking it's the same act. what differs is the motive for doing so. most people would have more sympathy with man a in the second case. in the same way, hate crimes deal with motive, not intent.

trying to read all these words make AAHZ sad.

[Sava]

yes

but i like it when people treat my threadtopics with much more respect than i do

[Sava]

yes

but i like it when people treat my threadtopics with much more respect than i do