Subject:
|
Re: Voluntary, private discrimination (Was: Disparicies in Sentencing)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 13 Sep 1999 15:08:32 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1887 times
|
| |
|
|
(I've snipped a lot here and there.)
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Edward Sanburn writes:
> Chris,
>
>
> 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.
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 implying, of course, that people
who don't mind killing others should get away with it. I'm just saying that
some crimes might not involve hate. Also, if a soldier can be trained to do
it, then anyone might do it.
> Being
> tried because I think is a form of being chased after the thought police.
I'm not a fan of the thought police myself. Consider this: there has been much
debate about banning the burning of the US flag. However, in all of this, they
never mention that it is and would continue to be fine to burn it in retirement
ceremonies. I've been to those myself in Boy Scouts. We all gather around a
great pyre, and salute a flag that has served its duty well, as it is burned.
After all, the only two ways to properly dispose of a flag is to burn it or
bury it. This is why I can't agree with any "flag burning" amendment. If you
can burn it out of respect, but it is made illegal to burn it out of contempt,
then you are being prosecuted based on your thoughts.
>
> I don't see a crime in thinking thoughts, sorry.
> > 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.
There has been news recently of a few Native Americans charged in a hate crime
of killing a white person. Not exactly what you are speaking about, but close.
Naji
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
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
|
|
|
|
