- Banned
- #1
HOW is such an insubstantial and subjective emotional state a basis of a law? I never understood that. So does it open the door to prosecuting Voodoo or Witchcraft?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Um, really? I don't need to disprove a negative. The onus is on you.Can you expand on that a little? Give an example?
I’m not asking you to prove anything at all, much less a negative. I’m simply asking for an example of what you are talking about so I can understand what you are talking about.Um, really? I don't need to disprove a negative. The onus is on you.
OH, your tactic is you pretend to be dumb? The fact that fantasy legal categories exist at all, you should be concerned about. Not me pointing it out. But here we are.I’m not asking you to prove anything at all, much less a negative. I’m simply asking for an example of what you are talking about so I can understand what you are talking about.
Great. Fine so, in practice, giving a emotional state legal gravitas is good and fine. Why? Politics? So, explain to me HOW you can PROVE objectively with facts someone's state of mind and why that is a category in the legal system. That is a rhetorical question. Its an oxymoron.Are you referring to hate crimes?
The notion behind hate crime legislation is that an attack on a random victim based upon their ethnicity or status in life affects more than just the individual as it actually instills fear in the entire community.
I actually support this in principle.
The problem with hate crimes has to do with how they are considered IN PRACTICE. There is such a double standard used in prosecuting hate crime laws based upon the identity of the perp and the identity of the victim that they have become all but useless.
Intent is the backbone of the sort of moral reasoning behind our entire legal system.Great. Fine so, in practice, giving a emotional state legal gravitas is good and fine. Why? Politics? So, explain to me HOW you can PROVE objectively with facts someone's state of mind and why that is a category in the legal system. That is a rhetorical question. Its an oxymoron.
When blacks attack Asians, they are committing a hate crime.Its odd. Blacks attacking asians, the huge black on black violence. And on and on. How are imaginary subjective categories like "hate" even a thing in the 22nd century?
I’m not asking you to prove anything at all, much less a negative. I’m simply asking for an example of what you are talking about so I can understand what you are talkThat is exactly what you are
Good point. Sorry.When blacks attack Asians, they are committing a hate crime.
Like I TRIED to point out, the problem here isn't with the concept of hate crimes, but with the way they are interpreted. Of course, blacks commit more hate crimes per capita than other groups, but that does not mean there is a problem with the concept of hate crimes. The problem lies in the obvious double standards in how the concept is applied.
Define: Hate. And just how do you prove an emotional state? HOW? In a court of law, I don't want to be absurdist, and what does it have to do with anything? Absurd.I’m not asking you to prove anything at all, much less a negative. I’m simply asking for an example of what you are talking about so I can understand what you are talking about.
I agree with you that the notion of 'hate crimes' is specious at best.I've been a juror. Lawyers argue into evidence : article A, actual physical thing. A letter where the accused admitted to buying poison to kill, or a actual Bullet from a gun or the accused on cameral killed the victim. FACTS. How the hell does "HATE" factor into to any of that? My mind is boggled. HOW is this factored in legally? How do you gauge hate? By what litmus test? Level one hate, level ten hate? This is absurd.