It's Time That He Lets it Go

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

I don't give two flying shits WHY they slaughtered untold thousands and it takes a real heartless fuck to try and split hairs over what the definition of genocide is.

 

Genocide *is* hate crimes, essentially. Look it up.

 

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=genocide

 

synonyms: race murder, racial extermination

 

The term didn't even exist until after WWII--when Hitler revolutionized the practice.

 

The UN said that what happened in Darfur wasn't genocide, but that the perpetrators should still be punished harshly according to the crimes that they committed.

[Guest MikeSC]

I don't give two flying shits WHY they slaughtered untold thousands and it takes a real heartless fuck to try and split hairs over what the definition of genocide is.

 

Genocide *is* hate crimes, essentially. Look it up.

 

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=genocide

 

synonyms: race murder, racial extermination

 

A political genocide, by definition, would not need be racial.

The term didn't even exist until after WWII--when Hitler revolutionized the practice.

 

The UN said that what happened in Darfur wasn't genocide, but that the perpetrators should still be punished harshly according to the crimes that they committed.

Hint: If you're using the UN to back up an argument, you already lost the argument.

-=Mike

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

And what the hell, I'll ask again...

 

Should spraypainting "Yankees Suck!" on a bridge be punished the same as spraypainting "Death to Christians!" on the same bridge? Same crime...

[Guest MikeSC]

And what the hell, I'll ask again...

 

Should spraypainting "Yankees Suck!" on a bridge be punished the same as spraypainting "Death to Christians!" on the same bridge? Same crime...

Yes, it should be punished EXACTLY the same. Vandalism is vandalism. There is no difference, whatsoever, in the crime.

 

And genocide covers ANY mass slaughtering of people. Hence the inclusion of "political" in the definition.

-=Mike

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

A political genocide, by definition, would not need be racial.

 

But prosecuting someone for political genocide would still be prosecuting them based on why they killed.

[Guest MikeSC]

A political genocide, by definition, would not need be racial.

But prosecuting someone for political genocide would still be prosecuting them based on why they killed.

No, it's simply making genocide for ANY reason punishable. Political covers a ton of ground.

-=Mike

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

A political genocide, by definition, would not need be racial.

But prosecuting someone for political genocide would still be prosecuting them based on why they killed.

No, it's simply making genocide for ANY reason punishable. Political covers a ton of ground.

-=Mike

Why does the definiton even need to include that it's killing a "racial, ethnic, political, national, or cultural group" then? Why isn't is it just defined as mass murder?

 

These semantics arguments are boring

[Guest MikeSC]

A political genocide, by definition, would not need be racial.

But prosecuting someone for political genocide would still be prosecuting them based on why they killed.

No, it's simply making genocide for ANY reason punishable. Political covers a ton of ground.

-=Mike

Why does the definiton even need to include that it's killing a "racial, ethnic, political, national, or cultural group" then?

Because "int'l law" demands that kind of moronic shit.

Why isn't is it just defined as mass murder?

Because mass murder is done by individuals. Genocide is done by a government to its own people.

-=Mike

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

What's a like crime?

Well, there's crimes of passion.

 

Oh, and Token's dad on South Park summed up best what I think of hate crime laws...

[SuperJerk 0]

Firstly, RobotJerk, I never said what you quoted me as saying...Not cool.

An accident for which I am sorry.

 

I accidentally pasted my own reply into your quote.

 

It has been corrected. (That's what I get for not visiting for 3 days.)

[Jobber of the Week 0]

I just got to this thread, which is a shame, because it's a laugh riot.

 

Kerry also cited examples Sunday of how people were duped into not voting.

 

"Leaflets are handed out saying Democrats vote on Wednesday, Republicans vote on Tuesday. People are told in telephone calls that if you've ever had a parking ticket, you're not allowed to vote," he said.

 

That never actually happened. LOL #1.

 

Then Mike goes on about the vast left-wing conspiracy about Ohio fraud, and names a bunch of Democrats who voted to certify the election results and thus send the message that Bush won fair and square. LOL #2.

 

Then Mike claims that Republicans aren't on speaking terms with the Christian Coalition and similar groups when Bill Frist is about to speak at a church and say that Democrats are against people of faith. LOL #3.

 

Then Mike says that crime due to acting on irrational beliefs about things that can't be helped is not deserving of any additional punishment than crime just for the sake of crime. LOL #4.

 

 

Thumbs up, guys. Thread delivers.

[Guest MikeSC]

Then JOTW posted one of his usual weak attempts at making a point and failed, as per usual.

 

I'd say LOL --- but it's almost a cliche at this point.

-=Mike

[The Czech Republic 0]

OH yeah, and I can CAPITALIZE words AS well as you CAN.

No you can't. You should have put emphasis on "and," the first "can," and "you," not "capitalize," "as," and the second "can."

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Then JOTW posted one of his usual weak attempts at making a point and failed, as per usual.

 

I'd say LOL --- but it's almost a cliche at this point.

        -=Mike

You thought I said that having racist thoughts is worthy of a punishment, and decided to go all First Amendment on me because of it. That's simply not the case, though. I advocated punishing people for ACTING BASED ON their thoughts, not for having the thoughts in the first place.

 

Let's use a couple of young men for an example: A Jewish man is assaulted by another man with a known history (and witnesses that can prove it) of disliking Jews. If it's proven this assault was done because of his irrational hatred of Jews (this happens in more cases than you think, some people will admit to it), instead of something like trying to take his money, then there should be a punishment. Not for having anti-semetic thoughts or opinions (although that's usually a good measuring stick for slime as history has shown,) but for acting on those impulses.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Thumbs up, guys. Thread delivers.

I aim to please...

[sfaJack 0]

Let's use a couple of young men for an example: A Jewish man is assaulted by another man with a known history (and witnesses that can prove it) of disliking Jews. If it's proven this assault was done because of his irrational hatred of Jews (this happens in more cases than you think, some people will admit to it), instead of something like trying to take his money, then there should be a punishment. Not for having anti-semetic thoughts or opinions (although that's usually a good measuring stick for slime as history has shown,) but for acting on those impulses.

Because there are already laws for assualt that will punish the guy just as if he had attacked the victim for his money. Why does it matter if he beat the shit out of him because he was Jewish? It's still a crime, and just as inexcuseable if the motive had been robbery.

 

The reason for the assault is irrelevant, regardless of whatever thoughts or motive the attacker had--it's still a crime we have a law for and the punishment will be handed out accordingly.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

If you rob the above-mentioned Jew for his money, liberals would see that as wealth redistrubition, which they like, hence the lesser punishment...

[Jingus 0]

A punch in the face hurts exactly the same whether it was done because of racial hatred or to steal your wallet. Thousands of dead people are just as dead no matter what the reasons behind their murders was. A person's thoughts or motivation for committing a crime should have no bearing on their punishment.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Looks like I'm in the minority in this one. Very well, I'll let it go.

[Guest MikeSC]

Then JOTW posted one of his usual weak attempts at making a point and failed, as per usual.

 

I'd say LOL --- but it's almost a cliche at this point.

        -=Mike

You thought I said that having racist thoughts is worthy of a punishment, and decided to go all First Amendment on me because of it. That's simply not the case, though. I advocated punishing people for ACTING BASED ON their thoughts, not for having the thoughts in the first place.

 

Let's use a couple of young men for an example: A Jewish man is assaulted by another man with a known history (and witnesses that can prove it) of disliking Jews.

And he's MORE assaulted because the guy was an anti-Semite?

 

In case you missed the recent updates, assault is illegal.

If it's proven this assault was done because of his irrational hatred of Jews (this happens in more cases than you think, some people will admit to it), instead of something like trying to take his money, then there should be a punishment.

And you don't explain WHY. He's not MORE assaulted.

Not for having anti-semetic thoughts or opinions (although that's usually a good measuring stick for slime as history has shown,) but for acting on those impulses.

Fortunately, there is the whole "assault is illegal" thing to fall back on.

-=Mike

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Looks like I'm in the minority in this one. Very well, I'll let it go.

It's OK. We'll accept you into the Common Sense crowd if you want...

[SuperJerk 0]

Let's use a couple of young men for an example: A Jewish man is assaulted by another man with a known history (and witnesses that can prove it) of disliking Jews. If it's proven this assault was done because of his irrational hatred of Jews (this happens in more cases than you think, some people will admit to it), instead of something like trying to take his money, then there should be a punishment. Not for having anti-semetic thoughts or opinions (although that's usually a good measuring stick for slime as history has shown,) but for acting on those impulses.

Because there are already laws for assualt that will punish the guy just as if he had attacked the victim for his money. Why does it matter if he beat the shit out of him because he was Jewish? It's still a crime, and just as inexcuseable if the motive had been robbery.

 

The reason for the assault is irrelevant, regardless of whatever thoughts or motive the attacker had--it's still a crime we have a law for and the punishment will be handed out accordingly.

I can't argue with this.

[Perfxion 0]

There really isn't a difference between Gang Laws(which are on books), Terror Laws(which are on books), and Hate Crime laws(which aren't on books.

 

Steretypical example:

1: Guy walks into a KFC, screams WHITE POWER and shoots everyone, its a hate crime

2: Guy walks into a KFC, screams JIHAD FOR ALAHA and shoots everyone, its a terrorist act

3: Guy walks into a KFC, wearing blue, shoots everyone wearing red, its a gang attack.

 

All three have the same end effect, the difference is that the terror attack and the gang attack carry a heavier sentence. The hate crime does not. Both send a message of hate to a crowd trough ganglang attacks of terror.

 

So, if a DA or lawyer is smart enough, attach terror to any hate crime and its thus carries the weight of what they want. In stead of it being a hate crime, it becomes domestic terror.

[Vyce 0]

Looks like I'm in the minority in this one. Very well, I'll let it go.

It's okay, since you're a minority, we can't do anything against you for fear of getting bitch-slapped by those absurd hate-crime laws you love so much.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

But I can bitch-slap you, Vyce.

 

*whack.*

 

Oh, and any validity of "hate crime" laws were thrown out the window a few years ago during the Cincy riots.

 

Peep this: During this period of "civil disobedience" as the NY Slimes called it, this (I think elderly) white couple got pulled out of their vehicle by some black people and got beat up. These thugs got charged with ethnic intimidation and not a "hate crime," at least that's what the news guy said at the time...