To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.off-topic.debateOpen lugnet.off-topic.debate in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Off-Topic / Debate / 2184
2183  |  2185
Subject: 
Re: Voluntary, private discrimination (Was: Disparicies in Sentencing)
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date: 
Mon, 13 Sep 1999 14:22:05 GMT
Viewed: 
1882 times
  
Chris,

"Moz (Chris Moseley)" wrote:

The abortion thing is probably a better example of why hate crimes are worse
than random ones.

You totally dodged my question! Is killing a person an example of total hatred
or not? So it is better to kill someone that you don't "hate"? Crimes are
crimes, and as far as I am concerned, crimes are an example of hatred, period.
Making hate crime legislation is nice in theory, not sound in law, or the
Constitution.

Those doctors are killed to terrify other abortionists,

How about gang killings? Maybe the gang that committed the murder should be
tried for hating the other rival gang. What a horrible legal path to go down.

and so the hate part of the crime is not necessarily against the dead person,

The hate part is killing a person, period. How can it be worse?

but against all other members of that class.

Gee, I didn't know their was a abortionist class.

And should be prosectued as such.

Totally disagree. I do not like leftists. If I despise leftists, and kill a
leftist, should I prosecuted for despising leftists or killing leftists? Being
tried because I think is a form of being chased after the thought police.

Call it a banned form of communication, if that makes it easier for you to
see the second crime.

I don't see a crime in thinking thoughts, sorry.


It maybe naive to be racist, sexist, etc. but it is not prosecutable.

No, of course not.

But that is what you are saying, isn't it? Oh, he hates X, and he killed X, so
let's try him for hating X and killing X.

Only deeds can be prosecuted. *act* in a racist way and I
don't think you should be allowed to say "oh, but I'm not the govt so it's OK".

Give me an example of acting in a racist way.


Depends on your country. In the USA perhaps they should hold the inmate on
death row for longer. Sentence them to 10 years on the row, then death.

What, so you can live in a hotel room for 10 years, live the good live at
taxpayers expense, and then you might get executed? That is punishment?

In countries that don't yet torture criminals

Torture criminals? Have you ever been in a US prison lately? The last time I
went to visit one, it looked more like a Sheraton than a hotel room. I would
hate to see real torture, such as the jails in the Middle East and such.


I gave two examples, what more do you want? Any government is restricted in its
powers, should it be allowed to hire people to do those things. Take genocide.
Few governments are allowed to organise that, but should they be allowed to
hire mercenaries to do it for them?

<sarcasm>
Oh, yes, the US has a long history of hiring mercenaries to carry out genocide.
</sarcasm>


Take a simpler example. The USA govt is not supposed to be racist (don't laugh,
that *is* the law.)

I don't laugh because it is the law.

Should they be allowed to, say, appoint a non-governmental
manager whose job is to create and manage racially segregated public transport?

Who would ever do this, and who would ride it? Talk about limiting your market!
Ignorant business move, but I am sure you have a specific example of this, huh?

I mean, the government wouldn't be doing anything racist directly.

Who would do this? I am really missing this point, I guess. Hence the name,
PUBLIC transportation.

Rude? Gosh, I know about 190 cashiers around the Michigan area that can be tried
then! Discrimination against Americans!

You mean they're polite to foreigners?

No, I was talking about your example of being rude to Slovaks or something.
Being rude is not against the law. Tasteless, maybe, not against the law.

Whatever gave you that idea? Do you think racism can only be directed against minorities
or something?

Uh, most hate crime legislation and the like is specifically written for
minority discrimination only. That is my whole point. According to the law, it
is OK to discriminate against white people, I.E. affirmative action, but it is
not OK to discriminate against minorities. Hate crimes are never mentioned in a
black person killing a white person, it is OK, because the black person may have
been poor, or whatever. That is what is so bogus about it. Hate crime
legislation is a poorly written law, that should be taken off the books.


Killing animals is ethically hard to defend in most cases, but I think there are
gradations of naughtyness involved. I don't think it's enough to say "you killed,
you must die", and ignore everything else involved.

Where did killing animals get into this? That is a whole other subject!

Scott S.
--
Scott E. Sanburn
CADD Operator, CADD Systems Administrator
Affiliated Engineers, Inc. Ann Arbor, MI

Work Page:
http://www.aeieng.com/
Home Page:
http://www.geocities.com/~legoguy712/index.html
Lego Page:
http://www.geocities.com/~legoguy712/legoindex.html


“The more people I meet, the more I like my Lego collection.”



Message has 2 Replies:
  Re: Voluntary, private discrimination (Was: Disparicies in Sentencing)
 
(I've snipped a lot here and there.) (...) I've read and heard so much about soldiers being able to "kill without thought" that I can't agree with this completely. If you don't have any morals, then you might not have to "hate" to kill. I'm not (...) (25 years ago, 13-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
  Re: Voluntary, private discrimination (Was: Disparicies in Sentencing)
 
I'm answering, even though you adressed this the Chris Weeks: Scott Edward Sanburn <ssanburn@aeieng.com> wrote (...) No. It is not, and can never be. Simply killing someone is barely scratching the surface of hatred. (...) IMO, yes. "I kill you with (...) (25 years ago, 14-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Message is in Reply To:
  Re: Misperceptions of America (Was: Conversation w/ a LEGO Rep)
 
Please, people, maybe I don't catch this stuff, but paraphrasing and hinting on a subject where some people have no clue, I think you better state, clearly, what you are talking about. Man, it is like trying to dissect what Bill Clinton is lying (...) (25 years ago, 7-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

276 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
Entire Thread on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact

This Message and its Replies on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR