My point...quite simply...is that the laws that are supposed to protect people from acts of hate are specifically targeted to only certain types of hate. The question becomes which types of hate are unacceptable to society and which types of hate do we let go? That really isn't the kind of thing I want to get into as a society. On a more basic premise...in any violent act, isn't there hate inherent in the act itself such that any violent act could be considered a hate crime? If I assault somebody, you can take it to the bank that I hate SOMETHING about that person.
Again... Because if the trangression has additional, serious ramifications beyond the original act, say to Society as a whole, it should be treated differently. Why are terrorist acts treated differently? Because it traumatizes many others, so many others become indirect victims; i.e., an inordinate impact on society as a whole. The analogy applies (but to a different degree...Ref...ok?) to hate crimes. See my math above that stumped MadMax
So they should change categorize all of the other laws as 'Hate Crimes', and the existing hate crimes as 'Hate Crimes Against Persecuted Groups' or 'Hate Crimes With Excessive, Additional Damage to Society' Ok with me.
Cohen, Ref and I both gave examples of crimes that affect other people besides just the victim, that are not covered by the laws. The thing is that you are trying to decide who deserves special protection. I think that all people should be treated the same under the law. I am sure that your (the current) system is much more fair than one that treats everyone the same though.
i just needed to say this one more time: boy, some of you sure can detract from the title of the thread to preach on brother But we still come back to the point that anyone who thinks this case is a (quote)Outrageous racial double standard(unquote) is like Batman Jones says...I white whiner looking for something to be angry about, like the book says. w h i n e r
When the left wants the Constitution enforced it's called championing human rights...when the right wants it enforced it's called whining. How convenient for you.
ok...refman...stay on topic now. this is the way to say it. when the entire Ole Miss campus and community are outraged and want to raise all hell about a afront to racial harmony from what was first thought to be a security breach on campus and cry for protection and heads to roll, it is justice for the black man. When it is discovered to be a student prank, and they turn to seeking expulsion (which is all that can be sought), it now becomes an "outrageous racial double standard." and here's a rolleye for ya
Gawd, Ref. I mean, everyone uses semantics, but this is a little silly. Exactly whose civil rights were violated by this stupid prank? Calling it an "outrageous racial double standard" IS whining. Calling it outrageous? I've got no problem with that. It was an outrageously stupid act. Wanting equal punishment? Wanting hate crimes laws invoked? Pretending to be a victim? It's whiny as hell. And it belittles true cases of racism. By the way, why aren't you in the Lott thread?
It was a crime that was specifically designed to cause racial tension. It is a crime that played upon race. Those little bastards deserve to do time. PERIOD. There are SO many problems with this statement. Having the same crime carry different charges depending on who the victim is...talk about lunacy. I'd rather them declared unconstitutional...but as long as we are going to have them they should be invoked evenhandedly...but that would defeat the purpose, eh? So you'd rather send a message that there are no real consequences for playing on racial fears in order to create mayhem. Because I've made my thoughts on Lott already known. I don't really think he is a racist, but he shouldn't put himself in the position to be misconstrued in that way. He is way too much of a loose cannon to be majority leader. He resigned and I'm glad he did. He is either a moron or a bigot. Either way...not good.
That's right, and if the criminal act is the same, so be it. But when there is a different amount of damage, it isn't. Quite simple.
I don't have a problem with that. This is just basically the hate crimes debate. We're on different sides. I maintain though that you make an exception for terrorists and suicide bombers. You countered that more people were affected when someone flies a plane into a building. True, but the killing of thousands of people, no matter what the motivation, results in the deaths of thousands of people. The laws are different because the hate which has motivated the crime does damage not just to the victims but to society. Same with race based hate crimes. I don't understand your need here to insinuate some sort of sinister motivation on the part of people who support hate crime laws. Do you really believe it's about punishing white people and not about protecting civil rights? We can argue the merits, but to posit sinister motivation seems uncool to me here. I would not. I agree that's a terrible thing and it ought to be punished. That doesn't lessen my disdain for white guys whining that they're being persecuted too. Look. I even think that affirmative action does result in some reverse discrimination. But nothing seems quite so petty to me as white guys demanding equal protection under civil rights laws. Sorry. I'm for equal protection under the law. But you'll never convince me that whites experience racism like blacks do. It's the tone of this thread that I was responding to, not as much the content. It was the writer of the original article and t4 whining -- yes, WHINING -- about their equal right to feel persecuted. The thread's not really about Lott anymore. It's about the Republican party, states rights, confederate flag, etc. Your input would be welcome.
Oh, those wonderful guilty white libs. They love to pat black people on the head, and promise to make everything ok. Don't worry black man, they like to say- we will hold you to a lower standard and your life will be transformed. It is these guilty white libs that show ZERO respect for black folks. They send the message to black youth that nothing can be accomplished without the help of the guilty white lib. LMAO @ Batman Jones and company. We have a crime committed, and the sentence is different depending on the color of the offender's skin. This Ole Miss episode is disgusting, and ought to get the attention of every white man or woman who is fighting for equal rights for all Americans. When a black man's rights are compromised in today's society, the march for justice begins, and everybody is encouraged to join in. When a white man's rights are challenged in a racially charged case, white Americans are supposed to sit on their hands and keep their mouths shut (according to the PC cops). This is the outrageous double standard, and if you don't see it, then I say you are either a racist or a self loathing guilty fool.
and t2343 has upped the ante! If we want to be hateful do we get to challenge you w/ an either/or also? Here goes... hmmm... If you really think of this as an outrageous double standard then... hmmm... then you, yeah you are either, hmmm.. a booger eating simpleton -or- a racist -or- all of the above. Your turn.
I maintain that should the KKK blow up a largely black neighborhood, I'll charge the offenders as terrorists. One death, regardless the motivation, is a tragedy. Thousands of deaths is simply unconscionable. People like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson? Yeah I think they're sinister guys with their own agendas to meet and their own pockets to fill at the expense of their constituency. Of course, they get to brand anybody who gets in their way a racist. If so, you'd agree that murder is murder, assault is assualt...regardless of the color of the offnder's skin and the victim's skin. I might check it out...when I have the stomach for it. I'm a little under the weather today.
I was all set to blast t####### for his post until I read this. Not necessary. I understand the temptation given the tone of t's post...but it puts a lot of people on the defensive needlessly.
ps t4: Can you summarize the rights that were infracted upon? So far, all I can see, is that a few African American students did something stupid. Their actions were harmful to society, but I fail to see which "white man's rights" were infracted upon. Are you so offended that the acts were committed by African Americans? Is this an us-against-them sort of thing? Is that why you feel so put out?
hey Refman, that was just a joke. You can blast away... I just needed to write something about "eating boogers", b/c I just watched Star Wars I and now I have the mentality of an 8 year old.
I'm not intending to blast at you. I just thought you were getting into a pi$$ing contest with t#. I think they did untold social damage on that campus. To think that there won't be any enhanced punishment for it when there would have been had the act been done by a group of whites compounds the problem...in turn I fear that this will create more hate.
