Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Right? You would think that would be a universal concept that we would all agree on. I can guarantee you that you wouldn't have found a single liberal from the Kennedy-era that would disagree on that. It really illustrates just how radicalized the left has become.We should ALL be against the government reading our thoughts.
How can you eliminate hate? Hate is centrally important. But yes, you can eliminate it. Like that old commercial shows about the TV parental control option sales point. This is how it goes.
The mother tells the Sopranos and his maffiosies that they are banned on her child's TV. Then Toni(?) Soprano answers, okay I understand and I am making this up to you, look here is Vinny's watch, it's yours.
There is no modern politics without hate, and there is no nation state and no national democracy without hate.
If they could somehow prove they were part of some racist agenda then they could be prosecuted as a hate crime. The law does not really deal in questions of what is worse, just what can be proven in court and sentenced under existing legal guidelines.So if a rapist targets black women, is that worse than one who targets white women?
If they could somehow prove they were part of some racist agenda then they could be prosecuted as a hate crime. The law does not really deal in questions of what is worse, just what can be proven in court and sentenced under existing legal guidelines.So if a rapist targets black women, is that worse than one who targets white women?
It's every bit as constitutional as theft<burglary<burglary of an occupied dwelling<burglary in possession of a firearm. Prosecutors consider motive in every crime they try. In most cases motive is an easy thing to ascertain. If some dumbass vandalizes a church or mosque it's more than simple mischief, if some nazi beats a random black, gay or Muslim person the motive is self evident. You act like this is a big thing when in actuality the bar is set pretty high to prove the hate crime enhancement in court and actual convictions are rare.That's an absurd position to hold all the way around. For starters, we already have laws to prevent those crimes. If those existing laws won't prevent the crimes, this certainly won't either.We need them now more than ever since religious/political/racial motivated assaults are way up. Going out to lure a (insert appropriate racial/gender/religous group) person into a beatdown or vandalizing a place of worship or political office are not simple everyday crimes and have the potential to spark civil strife or revenge crimes so they deserve harsher sentences. No one objects to any of the other kinds of laws that lengthen sentences for various circumstances surrounding the crime so why just this?Hate crime laws were ruled constitutional.
They were ruled constitutional in a case of BLACK on WHITE crime.
That doesn't make it okay. We have laws to punish crimes. We don't need "hate crime laws."
Second, and much more importantly again, there is absolutely no way for the state to know what the person was thinking when they committed that crime. It's beyond irrational and unconstitutional.
Vandalism is vandalism. It's not the motive that is important but the action.
It's every bit as constitutional as theft<burglary<burglary of an occupied dwelling<burglary in possession of a firearm. Prosecutors consider motive in every crime they try. In most cases motive is an easy thing to ascertain. If some dumbass vandalizes a church or mosque it's more than simple mischief, if some nazi beats a random black, gay or Muslim person the motive is self evident. You act like this is a big thing when in actuality the bar is set pretty high to prove the hate crime enhancement in court and actual convictions are rare.That's an absurd position to hold all the way around. For starters, we already have laws to prevent those crimes. If those existing laws won't prevent the crimes, this certainly won't either.We need them now more than ever since religious/political/racial motivated assaults are way up. Going out to lure a (insert appropriate racial/gender/religous group) person into a beatdown or vandalizing a place of worship or political office are not simple everyday crimes and have the potential to spark civil strife or revenge crimes so they deserve harsher sentences. No one objects to any of the other kinds of laws that lengthen sentences for various circumstances surrounding the crime so why just this?That doesn't make it okay. We have laws to punish crimes. We don't need "hate crime laws."
Second, and much more importantly again, there is absolutely no way for the state to know what the person was thinking when they committed that crime. It's beyond irrational and unconstitutional.
Vandalism is vandalism. It's not the motive that is important but the action.
The action is important, yes, but the motive is important too, I guess. I observed, that some people hate others because they are tired, for example a mother hates her child when she is tired, but after she has had a rest, then she doesn't hate her child any more. Mothers have been known to kill their children occasionally like this. Hate is very interesting.
And very successfully at that, totaling ~ 300 million people in mostly Slavonic countries in Europe.How can you eliminate hate? Hate is centrally important. But yes, you can eliminate it. Like that old commercial shows about the TV parental control option sales point. This is how it goes.
The mother tells the Sopranos and his maffiosies that they are banned on her child's TV. Then Toni(?) Soprano answers, okay I understand and I am making this up to you, look here is Vinny's watch, it's yours.
There is no modern politics without hate, and there is no nation state and no national democracy without hate.
Liberals want to control your thoughts, that's why.
It's every bit as constitutional as theft<burglary<burglary of an occupied dwelling<burglary in possession of a firearm. Prosecutors consider motive in every crime they try. In most cases motive is an easy thing to ascertain. If some dumbass vandalizes a church or mosque it's more than simple mischief, if some nazi beats a random black, gay or Muslim person the motive is self evident. You act like this is a big thing when in actuality the bar is set pretty high to prove the hate crime enhancement in court and actual convictions are rare.That's an absurd position to hold all the way around. For starters, we already have laws to prevent those crimes. If those existing laws won't prevent the crimes, this certainly won't either.We need them now more than ever since religious/political/racial motivated assaults are way up. Going out to lure a (insert appropriate racial/gender/religous group) person into a beatdown or vandalizing a place of worship or political office are not simple everyday crimes and have the potential to spark civil strife or revenge crimes so they deserve harsher sentences. No one objects to any of the other kinds of laws that lengthen sentences for various circumstances surrounding the crime so why just this?
Second, and much more importantly again, there is absolutely no way for the state to know what the person was thinking when they committed that crime. It's beyond irrational and unconstitutional.
Vandalism is vandalism. It's not the motive that is important but the action.
The action is important, yes, but the motive is important too, I guess. I observed, that some people hate others because they are tired, for example a mother hates her child when she is tired, but after she has had a rest, then she doesn't hate her child any more. Mothers have been known to kill their children occasionally like this. Hate is very interesting.
Good mothers never "hate" their own children. Tired or not.
It's every bit as constitutional as theft<burglary<burglary of an occupied dwelling<burglary in possession of a firearm. Prosecutors consider motive in every crime they try. In most cases motive is an easy thing to ascertain. If some dumbass vandalizes a church or mosque it's more than simple mischief, if some nazi beats a random black, gay or Muslim person the motive is self evident. You act like this is a big thing when in actuality the bar is set pretty high to prove the hate crime enhancement in court and actual convictions are rare.That's an absurd position to hold all the way around. For starters, we already have laws to prevent those crimes. If those existing laws won't prevent the crimes, this certainly won't either.
Second, and much more importantly again, there is absolutely no way for the state to know what the person was thinking when they committed that crime. It's beyond irrational and unconstitutional.
Vandalism is vandalism. It's not the motive that is important but the action.
The action is important, yes, but the motive is important too, I guess. I observed, that some people hate others because they are tired, for example a mother hates her child when she is tired, but after she has had a rest, then she doesn't hate her child any more. Mothers have been known to kill their children occasionally like this. Hate is very interesting.
Good mothers never "hate" their own children. Tired or not.
Why are you saying that? I bet that you like everyone else hated your job for no other reason that you were too tired that day. Then the next day you didn't. Same thing.
It's every bit as constitutional as theft<burglary<burglary of an occupied dwelling<burglary in possession of a firearm. Prosecutors consider motive in every crime they try. In most cases motive is an easy thing to ascertain. If some dumbass vandalizes a church or mosque it's more than simple mischief, if some nazi beats a random black, gay or Muslim person the motive is self evident. You act like this is a big thing when in actuality the bar is set pretty high to prove the hate crime enhancement in court and actual convictions are rare.
Vandalism is vandalism. It's not the motive that is important but the action.
The action is important, yes, but the motive is important too, I guess. I observed, that some people hate others because they are tired, for example a mother hates her child when she is tired, but after she has had a rest, then she doesn't hate her child any more. Mothers have been known to kill their children occasionally like this. Hate is very interesting.
Good mothers never "hate" their own children. Tired or not.
Why are you saying that? I bet that you like everyone else hated your job for no other reason that you were too tired that day. Then the next day you didn't. Same thing.
It is not the same thing at all. Obviously you don't have any children. I love my child unconditionally.
You don't realize how you're contradicting yourself? It is literally impossible to prove that someone had hate in their mind and that was the motivating factor (unless, of course, one admits it).If they could somehow prove they were part of some racist agenda then they could be prosecuted as a hate crime. The law does not really deal in questions of what is worse, just what can be proven in court and sentenced under existing legal guidelines.So if a rapist targets black women, is that worse than one who targets white women?
Vandalism is vandalism. It's not the motive that is important but the action.
The action is important, yes, but the motive is important too, I guess. I observed, that some people hate others because they are tired, for example a mother hates her child when she is tired, but after she has had a rest, then she doesn't hate her child any more. Mothers have been known to kill their children occasionally like this. Hate is very interesting.
Good mothers never "hate" their own children. Tired or not.
Why are you saying that? I bet that you like everyone else hated your job for no other reason that you were too tired that day. Then the next day you didn't. Same thing.
It is not the same thing at all. Obviously you don't have any children. I love my child unconditionally.
Whose child do you have? Children can hate their mothers too, as they often say it too. Isn't hate a result of desire? The desire for greed, or for self defense, or for rest?
Because it is true.Why are you saying that?Good mothers never "hate" their own children. Tired or not.
Exactly! And should they be charged with a crime for that?!?Children can hate their mothers too, as they often say it too. Isn't hate a result of desire? The desire for greed, or for self defense, or for rest?
I think anotherlife is a little stoned out of her mind right now. She's rambling incoherently.The action is important, yes, but the motive is important too, I guess. I observed, that some people hate others because they are tired, for example a mother hates her child when she is tired, but after she has had a rest, then she doesn't hate her child any more. Mothers have been known to kill their children occasionally like this. Hate is very interesting.
Good mothers never "hate" their own children. Tired or not.
Why are you saying that? I bet that you like everyone else hated your job for no other reason that you were too tired that day. Then the next day you didn't. Same thing.
It is not the same thing at all. Obviously you don't have any children. I love my child unconditionally.
Whose child do you have? Children can hate their mothers too, as they often say it too. Isn't hate a result of desire? The desire for greed, or for self defense, or for rest?
What are you talking about? You are getting off topic.
The thread is about how to eliminate hate, I think. For this reason I wonder here about the reasons for hate. In any ways shooting whoever you hate is effective in eliminating hate, because you forget him after. What would you do to eliminate hate?The action is important, yes, but the motive is important too, I guess. I observed, that some people hate others because they are tired, for example a mother hates her child when she is tired, but after she has had a rest, then she doesn't hate her child any more. Mothers have been known to kill their children occasionally like this. Hate is very interesting.
Good mothers never "hate" their own children. Tired or not.
Why are you saying that? I bet that you like everyone else hated your job for no other reason that you were too tired that day. Then the next day you didn't. Same thing.
It is not the same thing at all. Obviously you don't have any children. I love my child unconditionally.
Whose child do you have? Children can hate their mothers too, as they often say it too. Isn't hate a result of desire? The desire for greed, or for self defense, or for rest?
What are you talking about? You are getting off topic.
In the hypothetical case I mentioned it would be similar to the "knockout game" that was all the rage a few years ago. Many of those people were charged with hate crimes because it was proven they picked some random white person because they were white and sucker punched them. They charged them with the greater crime because of the potential for copycats and an example had to be made. Just getting in a scuffle with your neighbor over something like his loud music or dog shitting on your lawn is simple assault, attack him simply because of what he is then we have a hate crime.If someone just walked up and assaulted you because you were protesting something they liked it could very well be ruled a hate crime because of the political motivation and the randomness of crime. Not the same as if someone who knew you personally thought you needed a beatdown for some personal reason.If someone assaulted me because they hated me, there would be no "hate crime." It would just be assault, and that is all it should be.
Why is it any worse? Explain.
