The Fallacy of “Hate Crimes”
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
17-02-2015, 07:01 AM
RE: The Fallacy of “Hate Crimes”
(17-02-2015 06:51 AM)onlinebiker Wrote:  Rethink, people.

As BNW shows - the fact that you hate someone for whatever reason is irrelevant - it's intent that's important.

If hate is such a crime - when do we start arresting people for the simple offense of hate???????

We are falling for making thoughts criminal.

How long till the Thought Police come to your door?

In what regards is that rational?

What do you think of the counter irrational extreme position of that. Do you deem that judging actions regardless of any intent being questioned beneficial?

Laws for thousands of years have had measures of degrees based on the intent of people committing them. Where is this altering happening with hate crime over the old accidental or premeditated.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-02-2015, 07:03 AM
RE: The Fallacy of “Hate Crimes”
(16-02-2015 08:32 PM)The Germans are coming Wrote:  We dont have hate crime laws in Germany.

As a result, a person who lynched a a black person because of that persons skin colour, get`s just as much time as a person who murderd his wife in an argument.

And in a country where murder doesnt always result in a life sentence, that DOES matter!!!

There is actualy a far right neo nazi activist in east Germany who spent 10 years in jail for being part of a mob that lynched an Indian.

And now he runs arround free on the streets spewing his bullshit.

Also: In a hate crime case the federal prosecuter runs the prosecution and not the state prosecuter.

That is relevent because if you google it, various states in the US south like Alabama, Kentucky, Lousiana, Texas, Georgia and especialy Mississipi abused this!

By employing a state prosecuter who didnt give a shit about or was to incompetent to win a case in which Cletus and Clebus were charged with lynching a black man.

Regarding the story on the murderer running around, I don't see the problem as him spewing his ridiculous message. I see the problem as Germany doesn't have sufficient laws to keep murderers locked away. That has nothing to do with hate, though.

Regarding your, second point, it's just factually incorrect. The federal government doesn't try hate crimes while the states try everything else. I think what you're referring to are the Civil Rights prosecutions from the 60s and early 70s. The Federal Government did use those laws to step in where the states refused. That was a long time ago, though. Now, the Feds only do that if there is political capital to be had.

Shackle their minds when they're bent on the cross
When ignorance reigns, life is lost
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-02-2015, 07:04 AM
RE: The Fallacy of “Hate Crimes”
(17-02-2015 06:56 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  
Quote:Murder is murder.

I disagree.
A teenage boy hitting his abusive stepfather over the head with a shovel, killing him, while the stepfather was beating the boys mother again is very different to a Muslim walking into a newspaper and unloading an ak which is very different to a white man killing a black guy because he's black.

Context matters.

First one - self defense -
Second - murder 1st degree
Third - murder - undetermined - probable second or first. Not enough data.

The difference between 1st and 2nd degree murder is if there was a degree of planning involved --- spur of the moment = 2nd ----- planned ahead of time = 1st.

.......................................

The difference between prayer and masturbation - is when a guy is through masturbating - he has something to show for his efforts.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-02-2015, 07:13 AM
RE: The Fallacy of “Hate Crimes”
(17-02-2015 07:01 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  
(17-02-2015 06:51 AM)onlinebiker Wrote:  Rethink, people.

As BNW shows - the fact that you hate someone for whatever reason is irrelevant - it's intent that's important.

If hate is such a crime - when do we start arresting people for the simple offense of hate???????

We are falling for making thoughts criminal.

How long till the Thought Police come to your door?

In what regards is that rational?

What do you think of the counter irrational extreme position of that. Do you deem that judging actions regardless of any intent being questioned beneficial?

Laws for thousands of years have had measures of degrees based on the intent of people committing them. Where is this altering happening with hate crime over the old accidental or premeditated.

You're not thinking this through.

If you make "Hate crime" part of the justice system as we have it --- it's putting a persons emotions in the same category as actual intent---

If -- a person PLANS to murder someone and includes someone else - it's "conspiracy to commit murder" -- and is a punishable offense.

If a person HATES someone - or a group -and they tell someone - are you saying that if a court can prove that - they should be jailed?????

Because that's where this is headed.

.......................................

The difference between prayer and masturbation - is when a guy is through masturbating - he has something to show for his efforts.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-02-2015, 07:13 AM
RE: The Fallacy of “Hate Crimes”
What you all seem to be ignoring is the ridiculous burden of proof you are creating. Most people don't make it obvious. Take the Shepard case again. Was it a hate crime? The killers insisted that not only was it not because he was gay, but they didn't mean to kill him. How do you prove it was because he was gay? How can anyone know what goes on inside someone's head? And, why does it matter?

Regardless of why they beat him up and tied him to a fence and left him to die, it happened. And, they are paying for what they did. Do we really want to increase the burden of proof and have to prove "why" too? I strongly suspect that those of you who advocate that will be consistently disappointed if that becomes the standard because proving it, in most instances, will be impossible.

Shackle their minds when they're bent on the cross
When ignorance reigns, life is lost
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes BnW's post
17-02-2015, 07:13 AM
RE: The Fallacy of “Hate Crimes”
Hate crime indicates wider problem with society. As in, if Muslims were killed because they were Muslim does that mean Muslims are being targetted? Changes possible responses not just to the murderer but also how to best keep the peace in the surrounding community. I think maybe terminology could be adjusted but I think important to explore reason behind murder. Also I don't think terminology is that bad anyway - no real reason to change it that I can see.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like morondog's post
17-02-2015, 07:24 AM (This post was last modified: 17-02-2015 07:29 AM by ClydeLee.)
RE: The Fallacy of “Hate Crimes”
(17-02-2015 07:13 AM)BnW Wrote:  What you all seem to be ignoring is the ridiculous burden of proof you are creating. Most people don't make it obvious. Take the Shepard case again. Was it a hate crime? The killers insisted that not only was it not because he was gay, but they didn't mean to kill him. How do you prove it was because he was gay? How can anyone know what goes on inside someone's head? And, why does it matter?

Regardless of why they beat him up and tied him to a fence and left him to die, it happened. And, they are paying for what they did. Do we really want to increase the burden of proof and have to prove "why" too? I strongly suspect that those of you who advocate that will be consistently disappointed if that becomes the standard because proving it, in most instances, will be impossible.

Yes... I do want societies and legal systems to concern themselves with the burden of proof of these cases. Because it will help hold higher standards and lead to judging firmly more based on psychological purposes and studying.

I don't care about just judging and punishing a person for an action that was based on its result. The goal is to learn the most about motives behind cases to judge the actions to the greatest degree of understanding and to learn how to prevent and treat this from continuing to happen frequently. Studying and viewing degrees such as hate crimes is a point in this direction. It's not a "we need the perfect reasoning" idea but you keep striving for it to understand psychology more and more.

(17-02-2015 07:13 AM)onlinebiker Wrote:  You're not thinking this through.

If you make "Hate crime" part of the justice system as we have it --- it's putting a persons emotions in the same category as actual intent---

If -- a person PLANS to murder someone and includes someone else - it's "conspiracy to commit murder" -- and is a punishable offense.

If a person HATES someone - or a group -and they tell someone - are you saying that if a court can prove that - they should be jailed?????

Because that's where this is headed.

I'm not thinking it through because it's an illogical unsupported slippery slope fallacy. It's headed there.. BASED ON WHAT.

Hate crimes are just a form of judging based on intent.. which is the same as been done for thousands of years. What actually is different or changing that has potential ramification that lead to criminalizing the thought of hate?

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-02-2015, 07:28 AM
RE: The Fallacy of “Hate Crimes”
(17-02-2015 07:24 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  
(17-02-2015 07:13 AM)BnW Wrote:  What you all seem to be ignoring is the ridiculous burden of proof you are creating. Most people don't make it obvious. Take the Shepard case again. Was it a hate crime? The killers insisted that not only was it not because he was gay, but they didn't mean to kill him. How do you prove it was because he was gay? How can anyone know what goes on inside someone's head? And, why does it matter?

Regardless of why they beat him up and tied him to a fence and left him to die, it happened. And, they are paying for what they did. Do we really want to increase the burden of proof and have to prove "why" too? I strongly suspect that those of you who advocate that will be consistently disappointed if that becomes the standard because proving it, in most instances, will be impossible.

Yes... I do want societies and legal systems to concern themselves with the burden of proof of these cases. Because it will help hold higher standards and lead to judging firmly more based on psychological purposes and studying.

I don't care about just judging and punishing a person for an action that was based on its result. The goal is to learn the most about motives behind cases to judge the actions to the greatest degree of understanding and to learn how to prevent and treat this from continuing to happen frequently. Studying and viewing degrees such as hate crimes is a point in this direction. It's not a "we need the perfect reasoning" idea but you keep striving for it to understand psychology more and more.

That's why we have psychiatrists and sociologists in the prison systems (or should in states where they don't) - Let them figure what's wrong with the scum.

Let the legal system do the job of getting the scum locked up.

.......................................

The difference between prayer and masturbation - is when a guy is through masturbating - he has something to show for his efforts.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-02-2015, 07:32 AM
RE: The Fallacy of “Hate Crimes”
(17-02-2015 07:28 AM)onlinebiker Wrote:  
(17-02-2015 07:24 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  Yes... I do want societies and legal systems to concern themselves with the burden of proof of these cases. Because it will help hold higher standards and lead to judging firmly more based on psychological purposes and studying.

I don't care about just judging and punishing a person for an action that was based on its result. The goal is to learn the most about motives behind cases to judge the actions to the greatest degree of understanding and to learn how to prevent and treat this from continuing to happen frequently. Studying and viewing degrees such as hate crimes is a point in this direction. It's not a "we need the perfect reasoning" idea but you keep striving for it to understand psychology more and more.

That's why we have psychiatrists and sociologists in the prison systems (or should in states where they don't) - Let them figure what's wrong with the scum.

Let the legal system do the job of getting the scum locked up.

I disagree with the entire process of this line of thinking. I don't view or deem is wise to view criminals as scum nor see ANY benefit to them or societies future by waiting til later steps in the process to use more psychological and deeper understandings of human minds/actions beyond result.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-02-2015, 07:35 AM
RE: The Fallacy of “Hate Crimes”
(17-02-2015 07:24 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  
(17-02-2015 07:13 AM)BnW Wrote:  What you all seem to be ignoring is the ridiculous burden of proof you are creating. Most people don't make it obvious. Take the Shepard case again. Was it a hate crime? The killers insisted that not only was it not because he was gay, but they didn't mean to kill him. How do you prove it was because he was gay? How can anyone know what goes on inside someone's head? And, why does it matter?

Regardless of why they beat him up and tied him to a fence and left him to die, it happened. And, they are paying for what they did. Do we really want to increase the burden of proof and have to prove "why" too? I strongly suspect that those of you who advocate that will be consistently disappointed if that becomes the standard because proving it, in most instances, will be impossible.

Yes... I do want societies and legal systems to concern themselves with the burden of proof of these cases. Because it will help hold higher standards and lead to judging firmly more based on psychological purposes and studying.

I don't care about just judging and punishing a person for an action that was based on its result. The goal is to learn the most about motives behind cases to judge the actions to the greatest degree of understanding and to learn how to prevent and treat this from continuing to happen frequently. Studying and viewing degrees such as hate crimes is a point in this direction. It's not a "we need the perfect reasoning" idea but you keep striving for it to understand psychology more and more.

(17-02-2015 07:13 AM)onlinebiker Wrote:  You're not thinking this through.

If you make "Hate crime" part of the justice system as we have it --- it's putting a persons emotions in the same category as actual intent---

If -- a person PLANS to murder someone and includes someone else - it's "conspiracy to commit murder" -- and is a punishable offense.

If a person HATES someone - or a group -and they tell someone - are you saying that if a court can prove that - they should be jailed?????

Because that's where this is headed.

I'm not thinking it through because it's an illogical unsupported slippery slope fallacy. It's headed there.. BASED ON WHAT.

Hate crimes are judging based on intent.. which is the same as been done for thousands of years. WHAT actually is different or changing that has potential ramification that lead to criminalizing the thought of hate?

I base it on a lifetime's observation of how government enacts foul, offensive laws.

I seem to remember not that long ago - pretty much everyone agreed that giving a urinalysis to the police was a clear violation of your 4th and 5th amendment rights. Then - the military started using pee tests - and everyone said "oh - that's ok". Then it was all government employees - and everyone said "Ok -- seems reasonable".... Now - pretty much anyone, anyplace and anytime can be forced into pissing in a bottle. They just need "reasonable cause"- no warrant, no nothing. Just their word against yours.

Remember "Enhanced Interrogations"??? Torture - pure and simple. How long will that "tool" stay in the toolbox now that they've got it?

You're deceiving yourself if you think that it won't come down to being arrested for hating _________________ (fill in the blank).

.......................................

The difference between prayer and masturbation - is when a guy is through masturbating - he has something to show for his efforts.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: