Thought Crime Legislation

[JakeStarkey]

I have seen no evidence such detailed deterrents work, in any way. However some do create more resentment and less equality, such as "hate crime", instead of deter.

I think hate crime legislation is wrong, but who cares about resentment by certain individuals or groups? I imagine that the KKK hated the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In fact, I know it was because several men in our community had to be put down before that group of wingnuts settled down.

Yet ... we still hear about the same percentages of crimes being a committed that are "hate crimes" even today in spite of such "deterrents". If something doesn't work then why continue to invest more time in it? Instead you could put more effort into finding something that works ...

Anybody thinks I am a libertarian or a far rightist is a nitwit, right? I agree with you, KK. I think hate crime legislation is simply legislation to punish unpopular thought. And that, while American to the bone, is wrong.

 

[Meister]

I'm against any kind of "hate crime legislation".
If someone in the majority commits a crime against a minority, because they are a minority...it's a hate crime.
But, if a minority commits the exact same crime against a majority, because they are the majority...it's not considered a hate crime.
Hence, there is a double standard of rules.

No, it has nothing to do with majority/minority.

Blacks are in the minority to whites. If a black commits a crime against a white, out of prejudice, it is a hate crime.

Yeah, just like when those black kids beat up the white kid on the bus? No, that wasn't a hate crime.

I would wager money if it was turned around...it would have been a hate crime. Jackson, and Sharpton would have put the pressure on that scenario.

 

[William Joyce]

I'm against any kind of "hate crime legislation".
If someone in the majority commits a crime against a minority, because they are a minority...it's a hate crime.
But, if a minority commits the exact same crime against a majority, because they are the majority...it's not considered a hate crime.
Hence, there is a double standard of rules.

No, it has nothing to do with majority/minority.

Blacks are in the minority to whites. If a black commits a crime against a white, out of prejudice, it is a hate crime.

Yeah, just like when those black kids beat up the white kid on the bus? No, that wasn't a hate crime.

I would wager money if it was turned around...it would have been a hate crime. Jackson, and Sharpton would have put the pressure on that scenario.

Exactly.

The problem with "hate crimes" is that they're meant to punish whites, Christians, straights... all the unpopular groups in Obamanation. The fact that they could theoretically be used for minority-racist crime is of no moment. In reality, the system ISN'T going to do that. We know that's true because we see black-on-white hate crimes on a daily basis, and nobody does a thing.

Hate crimes are a hate crime against whites.

 

[JakeStarkey]

William Joyce, that whacko cretin, then posts his drivel, and I have to start reconsidering my position. Is it possible to pass hate crime legislation that criminalizes "William Joyce babbling". That's my point. All thought and most speech has to be protected, period: even that of a William Joyce.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

I oppose the modern liberal philosophy bedrocking hate crime legislation, period. The intent of the commission of a crime is hate itself, because no such thing as a victimless crime exists.

Well...there are snippets of common sense eminating from your grey matter after all.....hope is not lost on the human race....

 

[nodoginnafight]

If thought really were a crime - I don't think there's enough evidence to convict most of you guys.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

"Hate Crimes" Legislation always leads to "Hate Speech" Legislation. This has already been done in Western Europe and Canada. The Socialists will abuse these Laws by using them against political dissenters. This is quite common in Western Europe and Canada. If you really do believe in Freedom of Speech,you could never support such unnecessary Laws. In the end these are just tools used to silence political dissent.

 

[EriktheRed]

"Hate Crimes" Legislation always leads to "Hate Speech" Legislation. This has already been done in Western Europe and Canada. The Socialists will abuse these Laws by using them against political dissenters. This is quite common in Western Europe and Canada.

The potential is there, which is why I don't support it either, but again, do you have anything to back up this wild claim?

 

[Intense]

"Hate Crimes" Legislation always leads to "Hate Speech" Legislation. This has already been done in Western Europe and Canada. The Socialists will abuse these Laws by using them against political dissenters. This is quite common in Western Europe and Canada.

The potential is there, which is why I don't support it either, but again, do you have anything to back up this wild claim?

Wild Claim? As in the Censorship of Islamic related News and editorials?

 

[EriktheRed]

"Hate Crimes" Legislation always leads to "Hate Speech" Legislation. This has already been done in Western Europe and Canada. The Socialists will abuse these Laws by using them against political dissenters. This is quite common in Western Europe and Canada.

The potential is there, which is why I don't support it either, but again, do you have anything to back up this wild claim?

Wild Claim? As in the Censorship of Islamic related News and editorials?

Yup, you're right. I just googled it:


As the curtain of self-censorship descends on Europe ... - Ideas and Consequences

 

[MaggieMae]

Nope.

It's all about providing stronger deterrence where likelihood of an offence being committed is greater.

Rich people are more likely to be robbed or stolen from than the poor so should we have a set of laws for crimes against the wealthy and second set of punishments for those who make less money since we have to deter crimes against the rich just like we do for minorities? If we did this wouldn't we be creating two sets of laws for the rich and the poor and since we are doing this for hate crimes are we also not creating two sets of laws for the non-white male and any other group?

So when you beat up someone its a crime but if you beat us someone and you are a racist then its two crimes? One was for beating up someone and the other was for having racist motives behind it.

I have no idea what you just said.

A hate crime, which applies to everyone, rich or poor, is one perpetrated against another for no motive other than the desire to inflict physical pain. Simple, eh?

 

[Intense]

The potential is there, which is why I don't support it either, but again, do you have anything to back up this wild claim?

Wild Claim? As in the Censorship of Islamic related News and editorials?

Yup, you're right. I just googled it:


As the curtain of self-censorship descends on Europe ... - Ideas and Consequences

It will get much worse before it gets better. It hits here too. I know that it's hard to be open to all relevant perspective, especially when it comes from the other side of the aisle, regardless of which side is yours or mine, but true resolution can only come, knowing what is relevant. It is not easy for any of us to see past all of the distortions.

 

[Father Time]

I beg to differ.
There are victimless crimes in my opinion, prostitution comes to mind.
However, crimes that have a victim are all absent of love, thus they are born of hate.

And what about necrophilia?

There is no victim.

Is any rape based upon love?

How can you rape an inanimate object?

 

[Intense]

And what about necrophilia?

There is no victim.

Is any rape based upon love?

How can you rape an inanimate object?

The only place that practice should be defended in is Prison.

Are you defending this?

 

[Father Time]

Is any rape based upon love?

How can you rape an inanimate object?

The only place that practice should be defended in is Prison.

Are you defending this?

No I just don't get why anyone can consider it rape. Can you rape a toaster or a pillow? No, then how can you rape a corpse?

 

[Intense]

How can you rape an inanimate object?

The only place that practice should be defended in is Prison.

Are you defending this?

No I just don't get why anyone can consider it rape. Can you rape a toaster or a pillow? No, then how can you rape a corpse?

It is definitely violated. So is this thread.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Just watched a great Geert Wilders interview. Not nearly the angry snarling boogeyman the Leftists made him out to be. Seemed like a very rational and educated man to me. In fact i would say that your average European Leftist is far more irrational and angry than this man is. So what are the Leftists so afraid of? Why ban the man from speaking? The answer is simple...It's all about loss of power for them. If the people are allowed to hear an opposing view they will likely turn against the Leftists. The Leftists have destroyed so much in Europe and i think more & more people are figuring that out over there. "Hate Crimes" Laws and especially "Hate Speech" Laws really are just Bull Chit in the end. A man like Geert Wilders represents a threat to their power. Nothing more,nothing less.

 

[Diuretic]

I suspect the Brits kept him out because they were worried that the locals would cause a few public order problems.

 

[JW Frogen]

I suspect the Brits kept him out because they were worried that the locals would cause a few public order problems.

Yup, the local Imans would have went Islam-ape-shit.

Free speech need not apply.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

And what about necrophilia?

There is no victim.

Is any rape based upon love?

How can you rape an inanimate object?

They have thought of everything.