Page 7 of 12 FirstFirst ...
5
6
7
8
9
... LastLast
  1. #121
    Quote Originally Posted by The Stormbringer View Post
    Your sexuality, orientation, gender identity, ethnicity, nationality, WHATEVER is something that should be covered.
    I disagree. People should just not kill people because they disagree with what they do in their free time.

    Like I don't care that bondage creeps out anybody's grandma, I'm obviously not gonna flaunt it in her face, but acknowledging that I'm into bondage shouldn't invite any retribution from anyone and if it does then fuck the leatherphobe, not me.

  2. #122
    Quote Originally Posted by Amnaught View Post
    I disagree. People should just not kill people because they disagree with what they do in their free time.

    Like I don't care that bondage creeps out anybody's grandma, I'm obviously not gonna flaunt it in her face, but acknowledging that I'm into bondage shouldn't invite any retribution from anyone and if it does then fuck the leatherphobe, not me.
    Unfortunately, we don't live in a world enlightened enough to not have protected classes and additional penalties for hate crimes.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Bovinity Divinity View Post
    I won't necessarily disagree here, but I will ask: "Why?"

    Why is it better to kill someone for their wallet as opposed to killing them because they're <race/gender/religion/orientation>?

    It's an interesting topic to me and it seems to be a widely held belief but I've never really heard a compelling reason as to why we feel that way.
    Because committing crimes out of financial desperation or out of excessive self-defense is apparently on the same level as committing crimes because of x demographic.

    Do you even think for yourself?
    "My successes are my own, but my failures are due to extremist leftist liberals" - Party of Personal Responsibility

    Prediction for the future

  3. #123
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    Y'know, admitting that you posted without bothering to check your facts is just an admission of your deliberate bad faith.

    You made up a bullshit argument that wasn't based on reality, and presented it as fact. And are now quibbling that you said "if" so it shouldn't be treated as an attempt to mislead people.



    Easy.

    They're either lying shitbirds, or they don't know what current US law is and can't be arsed to check before opening their big, stupid mouths and jamming their bigoted feet right in up to the knee.

    That's how their "reasoning" works.

    - - - Updated - - -



    I made a comment about prison populations and arrests for drug possession.
    You posted a link about federal prison populations, moving the goalposts.
    I moved them back, and pointed out that you moved them.
    You have now, here, pointed to a completely unrelated statute, as if that changes anything.

    When you're interested in an honest discussion, get back to me. I'm not playing these stupid games with you any more.
    Im not moving anything but fine. Heres one that includes the states.

    https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/p13.pdf

    16 percent of state prisoners are drug offenders but only 49,000 out of 1.3 million total prisoners are for possession (page 16). Dont know if that is all person use or possession for sale (which is different from trafficking as that can require transportation depending on state statute). But even if we say that all of those 49,000 had one join that's 4 percent. Not sure how saying personal use in CA is a completely unrelated statute. Its the very statute you're talking about when you talk about personal use drug offenders in prison. What statute was I suppose to mention. Embezzlement? Hardly the prisons are full of personal use drug offenders like many like to claim.

  4. #124
    Quote Originally Posted by i9erek View Post
    This is stupid. Isn't murder illegal? Do we need a law against burning people to death or the various ways we can murder humans?
    I think the point is to make it a federal crime so that it can't get swept under the rug by local authorities as it was in the past. Back in the past murder was still illegal but the local police was so compromised as was the local DA nobody ever bothered investigating who committed the crimes because in all likelyhood the people in power there also were related too or engaged in those activities.

    Making it a federal crime means if this starts happening again you in theory have another direction to attack it from if the local authorities can't or won't prosecute it.

  5. #125
    Mechagnome Dougie Cooper's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Inside the dream. But who is the dreamer?
    Posts
    582
    What I don't get is why so many straight people don't seem to understand that protecting sexual orientation means they're protected as well. Heterosexuality is a sexual orientation. The same goes for cisgender people - if gender identity is protected, that means people who identify as the gender they were assigned at birth are protected because that is a gender identity. There's no reason not to have protections for those things because it benefits literally everyone (except, I guess, the people who are really into the idea of murdering queers, but that's not a problem).
    Link to image.

    I don't need you to respect me, I respect me. I don't need you to love me, I love me. But I want you to know you could know me if you change your mind.

  6. #126
    Quote Originally Posted by Bovinity Divinity View Post
    I won't necessarily disagree here, but I will ask: "Why?"

    Why is it better to kill someone for their wallet as opposed to killing them because they're <race/gender/religion/orientation>?

    It's an interesting topic to me and it seems to be a widely held belief but I've never really heard a compelling reason as to why we feel that way.
    I'd say it's currently a socially-engineered response at this point, and it's goal is to say that some people's lives are worth more than others. Irony is those pushing such narratives are supposedly for equality for all, but in reality it's a classic example of "four legs good, two legs bad" language abuse as a means of control.

    If there is any differentiation to be had when it comes to killing, I'd say it would be whether there was intent to kill or not. If you intended to kill someone, that's pretty much the worst case scenario, and the reasons why you wanted to intentionally wanted to kill someone are rather pointless. There certainly are legal nuances to everything, hence why there's varying degrees of murder and manslaughter charges, but I'd argue that any intentional killing likely had 'hate' as a motivating factor aside from a few rare cases. To assume that 'hate' crimes are the exclusive domain of killings that involve gender/identity politics and should be treated as special cases is asinine. When people say there's no such thing as 'hate' crimes or speech, they are against gender/identity politics receiving elevated status worthy of special treatment when true equality/justice under the law should not have special treatment of any person or groups.

    Quote Originally Posted by Malvalen View Post
    What I don't get is why so many straight people don't seem to understand that protecting sexual orientation means they're protected as well. Heterosexuality is a sexual orientation. The same goes for cisgender people - if gender identity is protected, that means people who identify as the gender they were assigned at birth are protected because that is a gender identity. There's no reason not to have protections for those things because it benefits literally everyone (except, I guess, the people who are really into the idea of murdering queers, but that's not a problem).

    While I understand that some individuals may feel this way on the grass roots level, I guarantee you that it's not the case for those at the forefront and pushing legislation/agendas at higher levels. The thing is this: everyone was already protected under the laws before all this language mumbo-jumbo came into play, regardless of whatever word or descriptor individuals call themselves. Why is there a need to change the wording and language if everyone was already protected? Playing word games such as this has been around for centuries upon centuries in politics, and it's always used as a means of control and/or pushing an ulterior agenda or motive, and the populace usually gets taken on a ride when the individuals may have the best intentions.

    *edit* - I should mention that I have quite a few older gay and lesbian friends that were out and about before it became the cool thing to come out. At no point in their lives did they think they were ostracized by laws or unduly discriminated against, heck they were active members of my Episcopalian church for those who think religious people automatically hate gays and lesbians. They all clearly see the agenda being pushed and know that it's not being done in their best interest or even with their interest in mind at all. Was talking with one of them who was a great mentor growing up, and he firmly believes that currently political agendas and legislation like this are making things worse for gays and lesbians. Frankly, I agree with him on this. All he ever wanted after coming out as gay was to be treated like everyone else (that's why he loved our church, everyone treated him as a person, not the gay guy), not to be treated as special or an exception.
    Last edited by exochaft; 2019-01-15 at 07:35 PM.
    “Society is endangered not by the great profligacy of a few, but by the laxity of morals amongst all.”
    “It's not an endlessly expanding list of rights — the 'right' to education, the 'right' to health care, the 'right' to food and housing. That's not freedom, that's dependency. Those aren't rights, those are the rations of slavery — hay and a barn for human cattle.”
    ― Alexis de Tocqueville

  7. #127
    Quote Originally Posted by Shalcker View Post
    If it is federal crime i guess that means it can now be pardoned on Presidential level as well?
    Yes. Under normal conditions, the President is much less willing to stick his neck out for someone controversial then a governor.

  8. #128
    Quote Originally Posted by exochaft View Post
    When people say there's no such thing as 'hate' crimes or speech, they are against gender/identity politics receiving elevated status worthy of special treatment when true equality/justice under the law should not have special treatment of any person or groups.
    It's ironic, because your group has always fought against true equality, but when it comes to hate crimes, suddenly "everyone is equal".

    Also, you might want to pick up on the tolerance paradox.
    "My successes are my own, but my failures are due to extremist leftist liberals" - Party of Personal Responsibility

    Prediction for the future

  9. #129
    Quote Originally Posted by Bovinity Divinity View Post
    Do you have an example of this actually happening in the modern era?

    I mean, I don't really care one way or the other about this law in particular, it's fine to have further legislation discouraging this sort of stuff. But the claim that people are still totally just getting away with this stuff all the time post-1980 because governors are pardoning lynch mobs seems a little outlandish and supporting a particular divisive narrative.
    No, I could not quote anything more recent than the sixties. But that still means there are people alive from those days and there could be men guilty of lynching out there. I never said this is happening, but it was happening in living memory.

  10. #130
    Epic!
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Portland, OR - USA
    Posts
    1,626
    Quote Originally Posted by PosPosPos View Post
    It's ironic, because your group has always fought against true equality, but when it comes to hate crimes, suddenly "everyone is equal".

    Also, you might want to pick up on the tolerance paradox.
    It is true though, that in an ideal society, we wouldn't need to label things specifically as 'hate crimes.' However, our reality is far from the ideal, thus the need for the classification
    Quote Originally Posted by Sulla View Post
    Senator Moore will be sitting in that seat and I hope it burns you to your core.
    Quote Originally Posted by Knadra View Post
    Trump did it so it's good. I put my faith in a strong political figure because I lack self-esteem and feel threatened by a changing world. Whoever stands against him is bad because I do not understand their arguments and I have a simple tribalistic mindset created through the consumption of right-wing media.

  11. #131
    Mechagnome Dougie Cooper's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Inside the dream. But who is the dreamer?
    Posts
    582
    Quote Originally Posted by exochaft View Post
    While I understand that some individuals may feel this way on the grass roots level, I guarantee you that it's not the case for those at the forefront and pushing legislation/agendas at higher levels. The thing is this: everyone was already protected under the laws before all this language mumbo-jumbo came into play, regardless of whatever word or descriptor individuals call themselves. Why is there a need to change the wording and language if everyone was already protected? Playing word games such as this has been around for centuries upon centuries in politics, and it's always used as a means of control, and the populace usually gets taken on a ride when they may have the best intentions.
    Ever heard of the gay/trans panic defense? For those who haven't, it's a defense used during a court case in which someone has committed a crime against another person (usually murder) because the perpetrator was just so upset at finding out that their victim was gay/trans that it caused them to have a meltdown. For a long time (and still in some places, I believe), that was considered a legitimate defense for having killed another human being. So one could get away with murder as long as they claimed they just couldn't help it because the victim's gayness/transness scarred them so deeply.

    We absolutely were not all protected equally under the law. I'd like to think that it should be just as illegal to murder me, a transgender man, as it would be to murder a straight, cisgender man, but guess what? That wasn't always the case.
    Last edited by Dougie Cooper; 2019-01-15 at 07:36 PM. Reason: Fixing grammar.
    Link to image.

    I don't need you to respect me, I respect me. I don't need you to love me, I love me. But I want you to know you could know me if you change your mind.

  12. #132
    Quote Originally Posted by Flarelaine View Post
    No, I could not quote anything more recent than the sixties. But that still means there are people alive from those days and there could be men guilty of lynching out there. I never said this is happening, but it was happening in living memory.
    I mean, if Bovinity decided to just type in "modern day lynching" into google, this would be within top 3 searches.

    Sealioning by way of demanding evidence that's easy to find with even a cursory search.
    "My successes are my own, but my failures are due to extremist leftist liberals" - Party of Personal Responsibility

    Prediction for the future

  13. #133
    Quote Originally Posted by Lemonpartyfan View Post
    Wow, thanks for the info, I'll read more into this.

    Obviously against lynching, but I'm also against piggy-backing.
    If Shalcker is posting it, you can be sure it's intentional misinformation disguised as "real" information. It happens without fail.

  14. #134
    Moderator Cilraaz's Avatar
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    PA, USA
    Posts
    10,139
    Quote Originally Posted by triplesdsu View Post
    Im not moving anything but fine. Heres one that includes the states.

    https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/p13.pdf

    16 percent of state prisoners are drug offenders but only 49,000 out of 1.3 million total prisoners are for possession (page 16). Dont know if that is all person use or possession for sale (which is different from trafficking as that can require transportation depending on state statute). But even if we say that all of those 49,000 had one join that's 4 percent. Not sure how saying personal use in CA is a completely unrelated statute. Its the very statute you're talking about when you talk about personal use drug offenders in prison. What statute was I suppose to mention. Embezzlement? Hardly the prisons are full of personal use drug offenders like many like to claim.
    The problem with those stats are the fact that they don't list paraphernalia charges (I assume they're grouped in with "Other drug"). Many times the possession charge is dropped in favor of a paraphernalia charge. So now we have an unknown quantity of offenders, up to the entire 210,200 in the drug category. All we know now is that the real number is somewhere between 4% and 16%. It's very likely on the higher end of that number, as trafficking charges usually land in federal courts.

  15. #135
    Quote Originally Posted by Malvalen View Post
    Ever heard of the gay/trans panic defense? For those who haven't, it's a defense used during a court case in which someone has committed a crime against another person (usually murder) because the perpetrator was just so upset at finding out that their victim was gay/trans that it caused them to have a meltdown. For a long time (and still in some places, I believe), that was considered a legitimate defense for having killed another human being. So one could get away with murder as long as they claimed they just couldn't help it because the victim's gayness/transness scarred them so deeply.

    We absolutely were not all protected equally under the law. I'd like to think that it should be just as illegal to murder me, a transgender man, as it would be to murder a straight, cisgender man, but guess what? That wasn't always the case.
    If you read his previous arguments, he feels that as long red states have hate crime legislation as a technicality, they are against hate crimes - even as they purposefully and consistently let perps of hate crimes go off scot-free or with a pathetic slap on the wrist.
    "My successes are my own, but my failures are due to extremist leftist liberals" - Party of Personal Responsibility

    Prediction for the future

  16. #136
    Mechagnome Dougie Cooper's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Inside the dream. But who is the dreamer?
    Posts
    582
    Quote Originally Posted by PosPosPos View Post
    If you read his previous arguments, he feels that as long red states have hate crime legislation as a technicality, they are against hate crimes - even as they purposefully and consistently let perps of hate crimes go off scot-free or with a pathetic slap on the wrist.
    Ah, yeah, I didn't read the previous responses. I was going to write a response to their edit, but honestly, there's no point. They aren't going to try and understand my point of view regardless of what I say.
    Link to image.

    I don't need you to respect me, I respect me. I don't need you to love me, I love me. But I want you to know you could know me if you change your mind.

  17. #137
    Quote Originally Posted by PosPosPos View Post
    I mean, if Bovinity decided to just type in "modern day lynching" into google, this would be within top 3 searches.

    Sealioning by way of demanding evidence that's easy to find with even a cursory search.
    I also never said I was surprised...

  18. #138
    Is this happening in the same country where it was difficult for some to call a group of black people kidnapping and attacking a person for being white a hate crime?

    Yeah, the people opposing it are dumb. But I don't expect more hate crime laws to be even handedly applied when people are in a race war panic.

  19. #139
    Quote Originally Posted by Malvalen View Post
    Ah, yeah, I didn't read the previous responses. I was going to write a response to their edit, but honestly, there's no point. They aren't going to try and understand my point of view regardless of what I say.
    Yeah.....

    Quote Originally Posted by exochaft View Post
    *edit* - I should mention that I have quite a few older gay and lesbian friends that were out and about before it became the cool thing to come out. At no point in their lives did they think they were ostracized by laws or unduly discriminated against, heck they were active members of my Episcopalian church for those who think religious people automatically hate gays and lesbians. They all clearly see the agenda being pushed and know that it's not being done in their best interest or even with their interest in mind at all. Was talking with one of them who was a great mentor growing up, and he firmly believes that currently political agendas and legislation like this are making things worse for gays and lesbians. Frankly, I agree with him on this. All he ever wanted after coming out as gay was to be treated like everyone else (that's why he loved our church, everyone treated him as a person, not the gay guy), not to be treated as special or an exception.
    And so predictable, the unsubstantiated anecdotes, in spite of overwhelming evidence that Evangelicals were the ones who pulled the trigger on this *and* kept pressing the issue, but are somehow acting like they are the victims.

    American Christians are full of this special, twisted and obsessive brand of hate they try and gaslight people with into thinking it's actually love. Deplorable.

    Quote Originally Posted by Flarelaine View Post
    I also never said I was surprised...
    Never said you were, just adding to what you said.
    "My successes are my own, but my failures are due to extremist leftist liberals" - Party of Personal Responsibility

    Prediction for the future

  20. #140
    Quote Originally Posted by Spiffums View Post
    When was the last time someone was lynched?
    Child rapists get lynched in prison. We need to protect the child rapists better!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •