What did they do?

  1. This post has been removed.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from Reubenhop. Show Reubenhop's posts

    Re: What did they do?

    In Response to Re: What did they do?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: What did they do? : Keeping those people off the streets should be a social imperative. They are worse than ordinary criminals because they are tearing at the fabric of our society as well as acting out against a particular individual. Right...someone assaults you because they are an a55hole is simply not as bad as someone who assaults you because you're gay. Either case you've been assaulted, but you need to label one worse than the other because one person is gay. I just don't see the need to differentiate. BOTH are bad. BOTH a55holes should go to jail.  So the person who beat up a gay person, that is imperative to get that person off the streets, but the person who assaults heteros well...that's just not so imperative. WOW!
    Posted by WhichOnesPink2[/QUOTE]

    If you were in a minority group you would see it different.   It's easy being a white straight male... They are seldom victims but often for the base for the hate groups that commit crimes.  The reason why we label one as worse than the other is the BIGOTRY that the person engages in when they commit a hate crime. Why shouldn't we punish BIGOTS more than others? Isn't BIGOTRY something society should deter people from engaging in? Isn't that a role of the justice system? To deter unwated behavior: like BIGOTRY.

    And yes, heteros can be the subject of a hate crime. Wow indeed.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from Reubenhop. Show Reubenhop's posts

    Re: What did they do?

    In Response to Re: What did they do?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: What did they do? : And you think extra punishemnt deters people from their hate? Yes...Wow indeed. 
    Posted by WhichOnesPink2[/QUOTE]

    You don't think that a primary role of the justice system is deterrence?  Look to history: the Klan terrorized Blacks for years because they were not prosecuted for their actions.  When they were the violence went down and the Klan is pretty much done as a viable group.  But don't let actual facts get in the way of your "thinking".  Keep the rant going by all means.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from Reubenhop. Show Reubenhop's posts

    Re: What did they do?

    In Response to Re: What did they do?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: What did they do? : It's working real well. NOT.
    Posted by msobstinate99[/QUOTE]

    It's a thousand times better than it was.  Try being gay, Black or non-Christian twenty, fifty or 100 years ago.  No sense of history or social progress. But then "progress" is a bad word for you.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: What did they do?

    In Response to Re: What did they do?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: What did they do? : It's a thousand times better than it was.  Try being gay, Black or non-Christian twenty, fifty or 100 years ago.  No sense of history or social progress. But then "progress" is a bad word for you.
    Posted by Reubenhop[/QUOTE]


    You are right on this, rube.  The past was not as good as it is now for those out of the mainstream, and that is a good thing.  Hate is no good.

    However, as the recent Chick-Fil-A issue shows, those out of the mainstream often (incorrectly) assume they have the right to impose their standards and beliefs on others.  Is that really progress, or just a switch in who gets to be the bully?
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from miscricket. Show miscricket's posts

    Re: What did they do?

    In Response to Re: What did they do?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: What did they do? : It's a thousand times better than it was.  Try being gay, Black or non-Christian twenty, fifty or 100 years ago.  No sense of history or social progress. But then "progress" is a bad word for you.
    Posted by Reubenhop[/QUOTE]
    I agree. The fact that we don't here about these things on a regular basis tells me that hate crime laws are a deterrent. There are always going to be some people who ignore the consequences of their actions..no matter how severe, but compared with the past? The rates of these kind of crimes are down.
     
  7. This post has been removed.

     
  8. This post has been removed.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from Reubenhop. Show Reubenhop's posts

    Re: What did they do?

    In Response to Re: What did they do?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: What did they do? : And you think they're not a viable group because of the prosecutions? Talk about naive. The klan and such are not viable because as humans we evolve from ignorant thinking through learning and from people who stand up and say hey...slavery isn't right, not serving blacks in a diner isn't right, not allowing women to vote isn't right, etc. etc.
    Posted by WhichOnesPink2[/QUOTE]

    So the efforts to halt their terror campaign and prosecute racists for crimes was needless.  We were going to "evolve" to a better way anyway.  Sure that makes sense.  Don't fight for justice or punish evil doers just wait for "evolution".  And the people who die while you wait are just unfortunate byproducts of this process.  Right...  The South had to be forcibly desegregated by government action.  And the Klan had to be put out of business by government action.  Read some history.

    By the way, slavery was also halted by government action to achieve social justice.  It was called the Civil War.  Look it up.  We didn't "evolve" on that issue either.
     
  10. This post has been removed.

     
  11. This post has been removed.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: What did they do?

    In Response to Re: What did they do?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: What did they do? : Well..the facts prove Reuben right. It is a fact that straight white males are the least likely to be targeted victims of a crime. That's not to say it never happens..just that they are the least likely.
    Posted by miscricket[/QUOTE]

    Right. I'll stipulate your facts, despite you not presenting them.

     "The man", the white man, are less likely to be victims of crime.  Why is that?  Is it the white mans fault?  Is the white man doing something that causes them to be less of a victim?
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: What did they do?

    In Response to Re: What did they do?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: What did they do? : Being an active nitwit again. Do you ever have anything the least bit intelligent to share?  No.  Never mind.  Hitler is a liberal and gays are a cancer is about as good as you can do.  Now buzz off.
    Posted by Reubenhop[/QUOTE]


    Ah, I like being a nitwit sometimes.  It's hard to be right as often as I am. Puts a strain on the noggin.

    The sooner you realize the policies of the 3rd Reich are similar to the policies of current liberals, the sooner you can quit claiming you are expanding government and taking our money for our own good.  Is this not clear, or are you not paying attention?
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from miscricket. Show miscricket's posts

    Re: What did they do?

    In Response to Re: What did they do?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: What did they do? : Right. I'll stipulate your facts, despite you not presenting them.  "The man", the white man, are less likely to be victims of crime.  Why is that?  Is it the white mans fault?  Is the white man doing something that causes them to be less of a victim?
    Posted by skeeter20[/QUOTE]

    Good grief Skeeter..stop being intentionally ignorant. It is not my job to educate you. Go look it up. It's sociologly 101. One has to wonder about those college degrees you claim to have, especially when you make stupid statements above.

    Facts are white males are still the dominant force in the US..whether you choose to believe it or not. Being the dominant force, they are less likely to be victimized. I am sure you don't need me to explain to you how that works.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from plasko. Show plasko's posts

    Re: What did they do?

    In Response to Re: What did they do?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: What did they do? : Actually I have stated my case you just simply refuse to see it. That's your problem not mine. The funny thing is that I'm not trying to change your mind. I'm perfectly ok with you having a differing opinion. Not sure the same could be said for you ; )
    Posted by WhichOnesPink2[/QUOTE]

    Maybe I can make a different analogy, showing how intent is very important to a crime? 
    (1) The first example is if someone is killed. If it is a pure accident eg someone steps out between a couple of cars and you run them over, I would state that is different to if you chased someone around with your car until you managed to finally corner them and squash their guts out all over the road. One is intentional, the other accidental. Yet the death of a person occurred in both cases. Same death, but one case should be seen to be more lenient than another.
    (2) Some drunken man squeezes your breasts in a bar, you punch him one time, he falls over with an aneurism and dies. Different to if you entered a bar with a knife, with no provocation, and just stabbed a random man to death. Yet a man died each time. Do you get the same punishment?
    (3) A relative with cancer begs you for years to end their pain and finally you put the pillow over their face and do their bidding, out of nothing but love. Or you have a bad day at work and come home and shoot your spouse to death. Same punishment, because the same person died at your hands?
    (4) You are a man sitting on a park bench, staring into space and wondering what to have for dinner when suddenly a woman comes over and assaults you by slapping your face! She says either (A) "you are a paedophile, staring at my 2 year old daughter"; (B) "argh, the aliens are coming, I am a mailbox"; (C) "I hate your black face you c**t, get out of my park". 
    I would argue that in (A) she is acting to defend another, (B) she is nuts, (C) she has just committed a hate-crime. If it were me, I would treat these scenarios differently, possibly even understanding (A) or (B) enough to not call the police. What would you do? Treat all A-C the same? 



     
  16. This post has been removed.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: What did they do?

    In Response to Re: What did they do?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: What did they do? : Something tells me that Skeeter wouldn't be asking for calm if a person of Muslim descent walked into a Catholic church and started shooting. Skeeter, none of my comments are "jumping to conclusions". I was simply commenting on what has been reported thus far.
    Posted by miscricket[/QUOTE]


    Well, I would.  It is what I have always called for, unlike the left, who takes every crisis and let's it not be wasted as it applies to their overall agenda and worldview.

    Since, in the view of most of the left, this guy is truly what you accuse those of us on the right of being, I am waiting for the other shoe to drop.  I see a set up in the making.

    Maybe you are turning over a new leaf, but I am still skeptical.  Until honesty starts emerging from the left, I will be on guard.
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: What did they do?

    In Response to Re: What did they do?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: What did they do? : Good grief Skeeter..stop being intentionally ignorant. It is not my job to educate you. Go look it up. It's sociologly 101. One has to wonder about those college degrees you claim to have, especially when you make stupid statements above. Facts are white males are still the dominant force in the US..whether you choose to believe it or not. Being the dominant force, they are less likely to be victimized. I am sure you don't need me to explain to you how that works.
    Posted by miscricket[/QUOTE]

    I don't think I ever claimed to have a college degree.  Is that some sort of merit badge for the left?

    The sociology you present is one that simply claims that that is dominant is protected unfairly, simply through being dominant.  Might dominance be the result of other variables that lead to dominance?  Such as not allowing yourself to be a victim?

    Seems to me the sociology you are presenting is one that doesn't square with reality, as in it seeks to explain lack of success, or lack of dominance, as not the result of poor choices, but as the result of unfair advantage.  That's not real-world.

    Just thinking out loud.
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from yogafriend. Show yogafriend's posts

    Re: What did they do?

    In Response to Re: What did they do?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: What did they do? : Well..the facts prove Reuben right. It is a fact that straight white males are the least likely to be targeted victims of a crime. That's not to say it never happens..just that they are the least likely.
    Posted by miscricket[/QUOTE]

    Very sweeping generalization, which makes it hard to dispute; however, it is worthy of reminding you that there are specific crimes that do make straight white males the most likely targets.  

    You must not be pay any attention to Bopope (wink)  if you don't recognize that straight white males are the predominant targets of pedophiles.   High profile cases are of course the scandal in the Catholic Church, and the recent sex scandal at Penn State.  There are countless examples, all of which show that straight white males were victimized.   Stats prove that 1 in 7 boys vs. 1 in 3 girls are victims of sexual molestation; note, also, that stats are very hard to stand on due to the reluctance of men to come forward admiting they were abused. 

    Anyhow, just wanted to point out there is a chronic history of crime in our society where straight white males are directly targeted, and are the most likely targets.   Don't underestimate, just because this offense is punishable by law, it is a chronic, insidious problem.  

    And yes, we have the Sex Offender Registry, which is a good thing.   

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from plasko. Show plasko's posts

    Re: What did they do?

    In Response to Re: What did they do?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: What did they do? : Except that I've been very clear in talking about intentional murder, assault, etc. Meaning a person purposely sought to kill, as in the case in CO and WI. BOTH were cases where each person set out to kill. To me it shouldn't matter WHY. They both killed and therefore should get the full penalty of law. In your scenario it's still assault no matter what the reason. Sorry but that's a reality. Whether the person feels some guy is staring at their little girl, the person is nuts, or committed a "hate crime", a slap across the face is still assault. Per the law it's wrong and against the law to slap someone in all three scenarios you presented. Is it not? Or do you think it's ok to slap someone because you THINK they might be a pedophile because they are looking at a little girl, or because they are nuts and think aliens are coming?
    Posted by WhichOnesPink2[/QUOTE]


    Yes it is the same assault crime, exactly my point. But that same crime can be interpreted differently and even forgiven in some cases (ie more lenient), all based on the intent! Intent is very very important, when convicting and sentencing because it does take into account why you committed the crime. This is also why they have "victim impact statements" to see how far you have affected the victims, and perhaps to take that into account too.
    Also, the system is there for punishment. In my example you cant really punish the crazy lady as she can't be rehabilitated. Best you can do is put her in an institution. The overzealous mother can be punished, but perhaps only with a fine/community service and anger-management classes as we don't want her to be removed from her kid. This would be effective enough to deter her in future. The last one might get a bigger fine, community service in an african-american community center (to teach her that all people are the same), and possibly a weekend behind bars as a taster of what is to come if she doesn't shape-up. 
    But 100% the intent is utterly important in all cases. 

    Thus Robbing a bank with a fake gun, to get money to pay for a life-saving medical operation, might get you a slightly more lenient sentence than robbing a bank with a loaded real gun to blow on coke and ladies of the night. This is why judges are given a range within which to sentence. 

    So back to your thing: A crazy nutjob has a breakdown and shoots some people. This is terrible and horrible. But was he even aware of what he was doing (Colorado aside the Gabby Gifford shooter is also currently in the news, and he was definitely nuts)? Versus someone who hates multi-culturalism and wants to wipe non white americans from the map (kinda silly as america by definition as an immigrant country has to be multicultural), so chooses a specific group and targets them in a calculated sane way. 
    Personally I think that both are just as bad as the other, but legally we do have to take into account all the reasons behind each shooting. 

     
  21. This post has been removed.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from plasko. Show plasko's posts

    Re: What did they do?

    In Response to Re: What did they do?:
    [QUOTE]But was he even aware of what he was doing (Colorado aside the Gabby Gifford shooter is also currently in the news, and he was definitely nuts)? Yes he was. Unless you think he was crazy the entire time he was buying the guns, buying the ammo and buying the military gear. Put it all in a big duffle bag which he planted outside the theatre. Went into the theatre and out the door to grab his gear. Suit up and then unleash. Yeah I would say he was aware of what he was doing. Personally I think that both are just as bad as the other, but legally we do have to take into account all the reasons behind each shooting.  Which is sad. Both should go away for life without parole or if state had capital punishment then squashed like a bug.
    Posted by WhichOnesPink2[/QUOTE]

    Being permanently in a secure mental hospital is life without parole.
    Anyhow I was talking about the Gabby Gifford shooter. The story has not yet fully come out about the other Colorado one. Maybe he was competent, maybe not. We will find out. 
    The bigger question is why don't we get people a psych test before they get a gun license? If we don't allow crazies guns, are we infringing their rights to bear arms (there is nothing in the constitution saying you need to be sane after all). 
     
  23. This post has been removed.

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from plasko. Show plasko's posts

    Re: What did they do?

    Yes, and as I pointed out crazy people also have the right to bear arms. Even complete nutjobs with gun fixations, who think that owning 50 guns is not enough. People who think the government is out to get them. Or some other group is after them. The ones who are 1-hair away from going all Columbine on some innocents. And we do nothing to stop them, or even try to track them. 
    BTW you can be brilliant and crazy at the same time. Nobody said crazy people are dumb, with drool running down their chins. Those people are pretty darned friendly, actually. 

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from miscricket. Show miscricket's posts

    Re: What did they do?

    In Response to Re: What did they do?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: What did they do? : I don't think I ever claimed to have a college degree.  Is that some sort of merit badge for the left? The sociology you present is one that simply claims that that is dominant is protected unfairly, simply through being dominant.  Might dominance be the result of other variables that lead to dominance?  Such as not allowing yourself to be a victim? Seems to me the sociology you are presenting is one that doesn't square with reality, as in it seeks to explain lack of success, or lack of dominance, as not the result of poor choices, but as the result of unfair advantage.  That's not real-world. Just thinking out loud.
    Posted by skeeter20[/QUOTE]

    Skeeter..the sociology I present is right out of textbooks and academic journals. It might not square with your reality..but it is based on the reality that the rest of us live in.
     

Share