Anti gay violence not anti gay when victim is not gay?

[Dug]

If they were intending to carry out a hate crime then it's a hate crime. Regardless assault is assault no matter which way you slice it. But if they were to get added time for a hate crime as well I wouldn't lose sleep over it.

[Tijuana]

Sorry, but no. Again, slapping "opinion" on something doesn't mean that it can't be wrong.

I'm not sure when people started thinking that "opinion" became a shield against correction or criticism, but hey.

Because words have meanings, guy.

o·pin·ion
əˈpinyən/Submit
noun
a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.
"I'm writing to voice my opinion on an issue of great importance"
synonyms: belief, judgment, thought(s), (way of) thinking, mind, (point of) view, viewpoint, outlook, attitude, stance, position, perspective, persuasion, standpoint; More
the beliefs or views of a large number or majority of people about a particular thing.
"the changing climate of opinion"
an estimation of the quality or worth of someone or something.
"I had a higher opinion of myself than I deserved"

You can criticize my opinion all you like. But, that is not what you are doing. You are arguing about the definition of a word. You are wrong.

[Deleted]

Yeah, actually it does. In fact, that is EXACTLY what opinion means.

In MY OPINION, the constitution should be interpreted to see hate crime laws as unequal protection under the law. Nobody here is under any delusion that I am on the SCOTUS. Therefore, you telling me my opinion is something other than that, is just nonsense.

Opinion doesn't mean you can't be wrong. "in my opinion the earth is flat" doesn't make it less wrong by saying it.

[Machismo]

I've never liked 5th e idea of labeling something as a hate crime. It adds to the divisiveness of a culture, and allows for people to pretend to be victims when they aren't. The people who committed the assault should clearly be punished, but not more than any other assault.

It creates multiple standard, and undermines the entire point of equality. Get rid of the "hate crime" addition. Preferential treatment, whether it be based on sexuality skin color, religion, or even age should not be acceptable. On that note, it's no different than the Electoral college, which has a similar intent, but leads to further inequality.

- - - Updated - - -

Yeah, actually it does. In fact, that is EXACTLY what opinion means.

In MY OPINION, the constitution should be interpreted to see hate crime laws as unequal protection under the law. Nobody here is under any delusion that I am on the SCOTUS. Therefore, you telling me my opinion is something other than that, is just nonsense.

I agree, it does create inequality under the law. Would you feel it is also the case with things like affirmative action and the Electoral College?

[Alvito]

It's not unequal, but feel free to live in your fantasy world. Maybe if people stopped discriminate those few in numbers than them then we wouldn't need anti-hate crimes law.

Punching or harming a person should be equally wrong no matter what your skin color, whi you love or what name you call your god. An act of violence against anybody is a hate crime.

- - - Updated - - -

It's about intent.

Murder is the same amount of wrong, no matter who the victim is but the law still takes into account intent when determining the severity of it. Heat of the moment, emotional murder, carries a lesser penalty than premeditated murder, for example. Just like punching a guy for calling your mother a whore would carry less of a penalty than punching a guy for being gay.

Intent is important if you meant to do something or not. Say I am driving and swirv into a crowd of people to run them over I am a mass murderer, but if I accidentally lose control of the car try to stop and hit somebody it is manslaughter. Your motive for intentionallyharming somebody shouldn't matter. The only reason it does now is years of the country collectively not giving a shit about different groups of people. So we end up with reactionary laws trying to over correct. Purposeful violence is a hate crime.

[Svifnymr]

Pretty sure that you're not getting the point at all, but oh well.

If you're going to have an "opinion" on something with a factual basis, then you can indeed be wrong. Unless you think it's totally unassailable for me to say that - in my opinion - the moon is made of cheese?

The issue is that you're debating an Official Opinion/ Interpretation as an established fact rather than what it is. If the government has ruled that the Constitution does not forbid hate crime laws, then that is the law of the land and you must operate on it (by I guess not shouting racist things when you're committing crimes?), but that doesn't mean you can't disagree with their ruling. He didn't say "that's not what the ruling is", he said "I think the ruling is wrong and the constitution forbids such things".

- - - Updated - - -

If they were intending to carry out a hate crime then it's a hate crime. Regardless assault is assault no matter which way you slice it. But if they were to get added time for a hate crime as well I wouldn't lose sleep over it.

I'd say it depends on planning, I guess. If they hate gays and were out looking for gays to beat up and found these two guys, then go ahead and call it a hate crime. If they saw two guys and wanted to beat them up because they were bored or drunk and yelled gay slurs at them (whether they thought they were actually gay or not), then doesn't seem a hate crime.

[A dot Ham]

Two guys walked down the street and a group of 4 young people shouted 'gays' at them and verbal abuse. The two boys approached the group. One of the boys was beaten and the other was pushed, fell and broke his cheekbone.

Police now claim it wasn't anti gay violence, as the boys were neither a couple nor gay.

So apparently intent doesn't matter, as long as you were wrong and your victim wasn't gay, it wasn't anti gay violence, even though the violence clearly occurred because the group thought the boys were gay.

Do you agree? (I don't, if it wasn't obvious. Intent is what matters. If you beat someone because you think they are gay and you hate gays, it's anti gay violence in my book, whether the victim is actually gay or not.)

Unfortunately though you aren't recognizing that some people (the un-evolved ones that solve problems with violence) still use terms to describe gays, as insults to even straight people.

"Hey faggot! Why did you fuck my girlfriend?"

"Hey queer! Learn how to drive!"

"Look at this gay couple. Couldn't find any females to fuck at the bar, so they're going home to fuck each other!"

So I agree. Not necessarily a hate crime. Ignorant as fuck... but there is no evidence to suggest that the altercation started or escalated specifically because one group thought the other was gay.

[Svifnymr]

He initially said, "it violates the constitution". Not, "I don't like how the courts ruled on this."

Which might seem like an opinion, but given how our system works, something either "violates" it or doesn't.

No, in his opinion it violates the constitution. In the governments opinion, it does not. The governments opinion has weight of law and his opinion is worthless.

It does not mean it's a FACT and that he is WRONG.

[Tijuana]

I've never liked 5th e idea of labeling something as a hate crime. It adds to the divisiveness of a culture, and allows for people to pretend to be victims when they aren't. The people who committed the assault should clearly be punished, but not more than any other assault.

It creates multiple standard, and undermines the entire point of equality. Get rid of the "hate crime" addition. Preferential treatment, whether it be based on sexuality skin color, religion, or even age should not be acceptable. On that note, it's no different than the Electoral college, which has a similar intent, but leads to further inequality.

- - - Updated - - -



I agree, it does create inequality under the law. Would you feel it is also the case with things like affirmative action and the Electoral College?

With the original affirmative action, that included quotas, that was stuck down by the SCOTUS in the 1970s? Yes. Modern day affirmative action laws are fine, as they only require minorities to be considered. Merit hiring is again legal.

The EC is not inequality because it's set up that way via a careful balance of powers. The voters in California have a slightly reduced value to their presidential vote, but they also enjoy a MASSIVE advantage, that complete dwarfs all others, in the number of Congressmen they get.

[Deleted]

A regular case of a bunch of brats yelling insults to bigger boys and getting what they asked for. Nothing special to see here, move on.

[Tijuana]

He initially said, "it violates the constitution". Not, "I don't like how the courts ruled on this."

Which might seem like an opinion, but given how our system works, something either "violates" it or doesn't.

I said it was unconstitutional, then later clarified. What is amusing, is how many of you mouth breathers legit cannot define opinion, even after I linked the definition for you.

[Machismo]

With the original affirmative action, that included quotas, that was stuck down by the SCOTUS in the 1970s? Yes. Modern day affirmative action laws are fine, as they only require minorities to be considered. Merit hiring is again legal.

The EC is not inequality because it's set up that way via a careful balance of powers. The voters in California have a slightly reduced value to their presidential vote, but they also enjoy a MASSIVE advantage, that complete dwarfs all others, in the number of Congressmen they get.

The EC is inequality, votes in California and Texas are not worth nearly as much as those from Wyoming. It was designed for Balance, not equality. It's the same with affirmative action. People believed that the only way to make things fair, was to make them unequal. They wanted it to be more fair to rural voters, so they made them more valuable.

[derpkitteh]

the intent was to beat gays. it's a hate crime, that's all there is to it.

[alexkeren]

Two guys walked down the street and a group of 4 young people shouted 'gays' at them and verbal abuse. The two boys approached the group. One of the boys was beaten and the other was pushed, fell and broke his cheekbone.

Police now claim it wasn't anti gay violence, as the boys were neither a couple nor gay.

So apparently intent doesn't matter, as long as you were wrong and your victim wasn't gay, it wasn't anti gay violence, even though the violence clearly occurred because the group thought the boys were gay.

Do you agree? (I don't, if it wasn't obvious. Intent is what matters. If you beat someone because you think they are gay and you hate gays, it's anti gay violence in my book, whether the victim is actually gay or not.)

Considering that the two guys approached the 4 guys yelling at them, they escalated the situation.

It'd be vastly different if the four guys yelled that and then approached the twosome.

[Tijuana]

The EC is inequality, votes in California and Texas are not worth nearly as much as those from Wyoming. It was designed for Balance, not equality. It's the same with affirmative action. People believed that the only way to make things fair, was to make them unequal. They wanted it to be more fair to rural voters, so they made them more valuable.

Balance is equality. We will give up the EC, when California limits themselves to the same number of congressmen. Be careful what you wish for; most would argue you get more power from congress than the presidency.

[Machismo]

Balance is equality. We will give up the EC, when California limits themselves to the same number of congressmen. Be careful what you wish for; most would argue you get more power from congress than the presidency.

Balance is not equality, not by a long shot. California would warrant not congressmen , because it has more voters. It's not about person, one vote... nor is it about equal representation. It's about maintaining the two-party paradigm. It's about control.

We have an example of the government trying to maintain Balance at the expense of equality, just like they do with quotas, preferential hiring, and even hate crime laws.

[Tijuana]

Balance is not equality, not by a long shot. California would warrant not congressmen , because it has more voters. It's not about person, one vote... nor is it about equal representation. It's about maintaining the two-party paradigm. It's about control.

We have an example of the government trying to maintain Balance at the expense of equality, just like they do with quotas, preferential hiring, and even hate crime laws.

Are you equally angry that California only gets two Senators? If not, why?

Mob rule is not necessarily more morally correct. Mob rule tells you that if you vote on dinner, and you have 3 wolves and 2 sheep at the table, the sheep get eaten.

[Machismo]

Are you equally angry that California only gets two Senators? If not, why?

Mob rule is not necessarily more morally correct. Mob rule tells you that if you vote on dinner, and you have 3 wolves and 2 sheep at the table, the sheep get eaten.

I disagree with the entire premise of senators, it was another attempt to create balance at the expense of equality. Most people don't want equality, they want to be in charge. They are willing to ignore their hypocrisy in order to make it happen.

[Tijuana]

I disagree with the entire premise of senators, it was another attempt to create balance at the expense of equality. Most people don't want equality, they want to be in charge. They are willing to ignore their hypocrisy in order to make it happen.

So you want PURE Democracy? Why? It's never worked in history, even one time.

[Machismo]

So you want PURE Democracy? Why? It's never worked in history, even one time.

No, I'm not a fan of pure democracy, it's the surest path to oppression. I'm simply saying I'm not deluded enough to think our system is based on equality, or even freedom.