Debate and Discussion

Hate Crimes
StaceyMontgomery at 9:28PM, Aug. 23, 2007
(offline)
posts: 520
joined: 4-7-2007
I noticed that “hate crimes” was about to hijack another thread, so I thought i would spawn a separate topic. I won't change anyone's minds, but perhaps i can make one side of the debate a little clearer.

Personally, I think hate crime legislation can be useful.

Let me take the risk of using a hypothetical, in hopes of clarifying the issue.

One day, people start to target veterans.

Oh, i know, you'll say that people have always targeted veterans. but one year, it gets worse. A lot worse. There are a lot of anti-veteran movies and books and websites. Not anti-war, but anti-veteran. People walk around openly calling for veterans to be targeted, assaulted, and killed.

Again, I dont mean “from time to time.” I mean all the time, everywhere. The “veteranophobe” movement is open about their goals - if people are afraid to be veterans, then there might not be any more people signing up. Maybe they're weidly violent peanceniks, maybe they are pro-Al Qaeda. Maybe they're neocons who just need a new group to be mad at. Whoever they are, their ideology catches on.

Veterans get attacked. They get raped and beaten and assaulted. Veterans have more and more trouble getting jobs. People won't even rent them apartments. Many veterans “go in the closet.” Some can't. Some won't.

You hate all this.

Sure, the people who attack veterans sometimes get arrested and tried - but not as much as you like. You start to notice that a lot of the police are anti-veteran. When you complain about the state of affairs, people shrug and say “but what are you gonna do about it? People just don't like veterans.”

“And,” they add “Maybe it's not that big a problem.”

“And you can't pass different laws for different crimes.”

And then you realize something - a movement that targets veterans is not just a random series of crimes. It's a kind of conspiracy. It's a lot of people acting together (oh, there's no central control, but they are acting together in an informal way). Even the people who just run the anti-veteran websites, and who never actually hit anyone, theyre part of it. And the landlords who turn veterans away from housing. Aren't there laws against being part of a criminal conspiracy?

So you have an idea - “Hate crime” legislation. You lobby for hate Crime Laws that recognize that attacking a veteran isn't just another random crime - it's part of a criminal movement to oppress, frighten, and destroy veterans. More importantly, the laws force the police to keep track of crimes against veterans. No longer are they just lumped in with other assaults - you can build up numbers that reveal just how big the problem is. The police always refused to track such numbers for you, but hate crime laws are useful that way.

Not everyone likes your plan. Not even all veterans like it.

“Why treat one crime differently,” they ask. “An assault is an assault is an assault.”

But it isn't. Your intent and desire DO make a difference when you commit a crime, and when we punish all kinds of crimes differently already. If you commit a crime with the Intent to perform a larger crime, we take note of that in your punishment. If you assault someone but you meant to kill them - we punish for that. if you have drugs but intent to sell them, we punish you differently.

Why not punish people differently for crimes that are also intended to terrorize veterans?

You pass the laws. They do help. People who take part in the anti-veteran movement know that you are working against them.

There are problems of course. The laws only help so much. A lot of the work has to be done in other spheres - so you help create a veteran's-pride movement that does a lot of good. Also, it turns out to be hard to cut down on anti veteran “hate speech” - after all, freedom of speech is a more important than protecting any one group! But there are some limits on free speech - especially speech that is specifically intended to incite specific acts of violence.

Hate Crime laws help. They don't solve the problem - it takes years to turn things around. At some point, you realize, veteran's don't need hate crime laws anymore. You're loathe to remove them, but these days, attacks on veterans really do seem to just be part of the normal background noise. Nothing special - just crimes.

And so you win.


And that's why I like hate crime laws. Sure, they can be badly written, and abused, and they should probably have built in sunset provisions - but they can work, and they can help.

In my opinion, the most useful parts of hate crimes laws are the parts that force police to track kinds of crimes. The statistics turn out to be terribly useful when people say things like “I'm sure they aren't targeting veterans anymore, that was the old days.” It is very helpful, politically, to have the numbers. No wonder a lot of people don't want you to have those numbers!



A lynching and a murder are not the same thing. Some crimes are meant to send a signal.

Hate Crime laws are one way of answering that signal. The answer, by the way, is “No.” In a civilized society, it has to be.

Hey, I lived this story, in a small way. or I watched it happen, anyway. But it wasn't veterans, that time. But we were - and still are - being targeted by an informal (but open) criminal conspiracy of terror.

But the answer is still “No” and that answer is getting out, at last.

last edited on July 14, 2011 3:55PM
Shar at 9:39PM, Aug. 23, 2007
(offline)
posts: 59
joined: 8-12-2007
I'll just copy and paste my initial stance from the other thread since it hasen't changed.

warren
Shar
warren
Perhaps we should just classify any politically motivated attacks (including simple assault) on returning troops as hate crimes. It certainly would meet the criteria.

The law is supposed to treat everyone equal. Who is to say wheter a attack was politically charged or simple anger.
The law is supposed to be equal. However, it has been decided to be more equal in the case of attacks motivated by race or sexual preference. Why should it be any different for political reasons?

You can't have it both ways. Either hate crime legislation should be abolished altogether, or it should be broadened to protect anyone who is attacked for specific reasons of hatred.

Are you in favor of abolishing all hate crime legislation?

Yes i am actually.

I would be glad to take it into a new thread to debate it with you since this is kind of offtopic though.

But i'll try to explain my position on it atleast.

I don't believe in judging a crime by why it was commited. A act is a act.

Saying that someone who attacked a person should serve less or more time simply due to the reason they attacked is irrevelant.

I killed a black person. But i didn't do it because i hate black people or carry ill will towards them: Less time.

I killed a black person. I did it because i hate black people and carry ill will towards them: More time.

How does this change what the person did ?
People should be judged by their actions alone. Not their opinions. A opinion of someone has never hurt anyone. Actively discriminating them or attacking them due to the opinion has. But the opinion in itself is not the crime commited.

And to remove any silly racist innuendos i'll come out and say im mixed race with a mother from Mauritius and a father from Estonia. My complexion is a light brown shade.
*Cough* Single *Cough*
I'm With Shar.
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:33PM
mapaghimagsik at 9:47PM, Aug. 23, 2007
(offline)
posts: 711
joined: 9-8-2006
Shar
And to remove any silly racist innuendos i'll come out and say im mixed race with a mother from Mauritius and a father from Estonia. My complexion is a light brown shade.
*Cough* Single *Cough*


Only your actions make you non racist. There's plenty of racist blacks, jews and whatnot. There's plenty of sexist women.

By the very nature you think your skin color makes you immune makes you racist, because you seem to think that being a certain race makes you non-racist?

But, that's the only remotely racist thing I've read you say, so I'm going to assume that you just haven't thought this one through yet. Unless you really believe that by virtue of your race you cannot be racist.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:51PM
Shar at 9:53PM, Aug. 23, 2007
(offline)
posts: 59
joined: 8-12-2007
mapaghimagsik
Only your actions make you non racist. There's plenty of racist blacks, jews and whatnot. There's plenty of sexist women.

By the very nature you think your skin color makes you immune makes you racist, because you seem to think that being a certain race makes you non-racist?

But, that's the only remotely racist thing I've read you say, so I'm going to assume that you just haven't thought this one through yet. Unless you really believe that by virtue of your race you cannot be racist.

Of course not but it is a good statement to make to not get stereotypical responsces. And most people won't even bother responding to it. It's simply a good way to keep the debate focused on the issues at hand instead of the person behind it.
I'm With Shar.
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:33PM
Shar at 9:57PM, Aug. 23, 2007
(offline)
posts: 59
joined: 8-12-2007
Continued from the other thread.

More than just telling me to reread what you are saying instead say what i am misunderstanding.

Also please don't answer a question with a question.

What were you trying to insinuate with your remark ?
I'm With Shar.
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:33PM
mapaghimagsik at 9:58PM, Aug. 23, 2007
(offline)
posts: 711
joined: 9-8-2006
Shar
mapaghimagsik
Only your actions make you non racist. There's plenty of racist blacks, jews and whatnot. There's plenty of sexist women.

By the very nature you think your skin color makes you immune makes you racist, because you seem to think that being a certain race makes you non-racist?

But, that's the only remotely racist thing I've read you say, so I'm going to assume that you just haven't thought this one through yet. Unless you really believe that by virtue of your race you cannot be racist.

Of course not but it is a good statement to make to not get stereotypical responsces. And most people won't even bother responding to it. It's simply a good way to keep the debate focused on the issues at hand instead of the person behind it.

No, its not, actually, but I'm going to assume you just made a mistake. Saying you're not racist because you're not white is racist against whites. Its maybe about 3 steps above “Some of my best friends are white”.

And please remember, this is the internet. I could be a 12 year old girl for all you know. So all you guys who sent me dirty PQs – you're in *so* much trouble.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:51PM
mapaghimagsik at 9:59PM, Aug. 23, 2007
(offline)
posts: 711
joined: 9-8-2006
Shar
Continued from the other thread.

More than just telling me to reread what you are saying instead say what i am misunderstanding.

Also please don't answer a question with a question.

What were you trying to insinuate with your remark ?

I did. But I'll make it simpler. Is attempted murder a crime?
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:51PM
Shar at 10:05PM, Aug. 23, 2007
(offline)
posts: 59
joined: 8-12-2007
Sigh.


I give up. And yes attempted murder is a crime.
I'm With Shar.
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:33PM
mapaghimagsik at 10:10PM, Aug. 23, 2007
(offline)
posts: 711
joined: 9-8-2006
Great. That's a starting point. So do you also agree that Sheik Abul Rahman, who was a conspirator in the 1993 WTC bombing was put in jail for trying to blow up the building?

Just to note, blowing up the building failed, so really, if you want to *only* punish someone by the visible acts, you would have busted him for…what, vandalism?

Why is attempted murder a crime, and not just simple assault? Because if a person is convicted of attempted murder, the jury decided that this person committed assault with the *intention* of committing murder, right?
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:51PM
Shar at 10:13PM, Aug. 23, 2007
(offline)
posts: 59
joined: 8-12-2007
Do you bother to read my posts or do you simply forget the parts that don't fit your argument ?

I don't really see any point in this debate if you aren't going to read or respond to the things i say.

I'm With Shar.
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:33PM
mapaghimagsik at 10:18PM, Aug. 23, 2007
(offline)
posts: 711
joined: 9-8-2006
Shar
Do you bother to read my posts or do you simply forget the parts that don't fit your argument ?

I don't really see any point in this debate if you aren't going to read or respond to the things i say.


Right, because I've slashquoted you because I'm not reading anything you say :kitty:
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:51PM
StaceyMontgomery at 4:45AM, Aug. 24, 2007
(offline)
posts: 520
joined: 4-7-2007
>

I'll just answer this one -

Because I agree totally. Your opinions should not matter in the slightest. Just your crimes.

Just So long as we count them all.



last edited on July 14, 2011 3:55PM
7384395948urhfdjfrueruieieueue at 7:07AM, Aug. 24, 2007
(offline)
posts: 6,921
joined: 8-5-2006
StaceyMontgomery
I noticed that “hate crimes” was about to hijack another thread, so I thought i would spawn a separate topic. I won't change anyone's minds, but perhaps i can make one side of the debate a little clearer.
If you're talking about my thread, I was talking about hate crimes the whole time. It's just that nobody could understand what I was talking about. :p

But anyway, this really comes down to our court system not having a guide book. Once a man robbed a grocery store. It just happened to have a federal post office attached to it, so he got 100 years for robbing a government building. Then this guy killed a 4 year old girl. Only got seven years.
i will also like to know you the more
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:04AM
mapaghimagsik at 9:08AM, Aug. 24, 2007
(offline)
posts: 711
joined: 9-8-2006
Atom Apple
But anyway, this really comes down to our court system not having a guide book. Once a man robbed a grocery store. It just happened to have a federal post office attached to it, so he got 100 years for robbing a government building. Then this guy killed a 4 year old girl. Only got seven years.

I think there's a guide book, its just that if you try to cover every situation, you wind up with a constantly updated guide that is thousands of pages long. Oh wait, that's our legal system :)

Its the best we have, and occasional craziness is going to happen. I think its interesting that people leave hate crime discussions before they have to realize they have argued themselves into the position of saying that terrorizing people based on the color of their skin, their sex, or their sexual preference isn't a crime.

I wish they'd just be honest with themselves and say that, or perhaps they'd realize the idea of ‘hate crime’ is misnamed. Its not the hate, it the terrorizing that makes it a crime.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:51PM
ozoneocean at 3:27AM, Aug. 26, 2007
(online)
posts: 25,115
joined: 1-2-2004
mapaghimagsik
Or perhaps they'd realize the idea of ‘hate crime’ is misnamed. Its not the hate, it's the terrorizing that makes it a crime.
Thats exactly it. And I think that is TRUE terrorism. Also, real terrorism seems to be largely supported by most countries in a lot of ways… That and subversive racialism.

But here's something on a bit of a tangent:
I was reading an old forum thread only this morning (something I found on a search, not at DD). These racialist bigots were discussing a news story about a series of arrests at this place called “The black Muslim Bakery”. Apparently 7 men had been arrested there as part of an investigation into the murder of a newspaper editor who was doing an investigative report about the “Bakery” and its connection when acts of violence and some unsolved murders in the area. OK, the arrested men were most likely up to no good and from the gist of the actual story, “The Black Muslim Bakery” was simply a business that these African American Muslim men were running and using as a front for organised criminal activities of various sorts. It's deplorable, but such things happen.
The problem was, these imbecilic, extreme right-wing morons didn't understand any of the subtleties of the case, immediately they characterise the whole group as a “terrorist call” that the police have been failing to act against and basically using the whole story as proof why Muslims are evil and should be rounded up and arrested…
Completely failing to grasp that “nation of Islam” is a bit more of a US thing, and the activities were obviously simple gang crime.

But it doesn't take much to bring out a bigot. And if they weren't calling for all Muslim blood they'd probably be calling for that of all “Black” people.

But with all that said, I can see how laws against “hate crimes” or even terrorism can so easily be subverted and used for even more evil ends than the crimes they were meant to prevent. Indeed I remember a case a while ago of a Green activist (a stupid man really), who was setting fire to four wheel drives (SUVs to you pop-speakers) in car sales yards. He eventually got caught and the last I heard he was serving a 100 year sentence for environmental terrorism. And yes, that's true.
I was also listening to a BBC documentary the other day about a recent case where a rather segregated school had some bad incidents of violence: An African American boy wanted to sit under the “White” kid's shade tree, and did. The next day the tree was all hung with nooses. This was shrugged off as “nothing” by the school authorities. Their failure to act precipitated more tension. Some boys got into a fight after school. The “Black” boys were injured quite badly, and so was a “White” boy. But the officer on the scene claimed that the “Black” boys were attempting to kill the “White” ones and he claimed that he thought the “White” boy was going to die on the scene. It turns out the kid simply walked home a couple of hours later, didn't even need treatment while one of the “Black” boys did. In the end a “Black” boy at the moment is going to be in jail for the rest of his life for a “hate crime” and attempted murder! But I'm pretty sure the family is trying to appeal.

Still, the thing is, just as laws can be used to protect, they can also be abused to persecute just as easily.

…Sorry for putting “Black” and “White” in inverted commas like that, but I'm not racist- that's the old meaning of the term: I simply don't accept that humans are made up of different “races”, it's biologically as well as logically unsound. The belief in that concept is “racism”, The belief in that concept as well as bigotry based on it is “racialism”. Our true separations are based mainly on culture and to a lessor extent physical appearance. I'm not preaching here, just explaining where I'm coming from.
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:27PM
TnTComic at 5:57AM, Aug. 26, 2007
(offline)
posts: 681
joined: 6-25-2007
Man, if our courts keep delineating punishments based on motives, the system's gonna be fucked.
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:31PM
DAJB at 8:42AM, Aug. 27, 2007
(online)
posts: 1,462
joined: 2-23-2007
I've always felt the whole concept of a “hate crime” and the laws that define them simply feed prejudice and ill-feeling towards the minorities they are supoposed to protect. They are a product of blinkered political correctness.

If a crimininal kills a white person, a black person, a Christian, a Jew and a Muslim, they are all still dead. Their families all suffer the same loss. Passing a law that says the crime against one of them is different to the others simply creates ill-feeling towards that community. It's effectively saying a white life is worth less than a black one; or a muslim life is worth more than a Jewish or Christian one.

There was a time when most of the so-called civilised world could claim to have left behind the mediaeval idea that people should be punished for their beliefs. Now, in the rush to be seen to be politically correct, politicians are falling over themselves to make every crime different depending upon the skin colour, religion, age, hair colour and shoe-size of the victim.
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:03PM
mapaghimagsik at 9:42AM, Aug. 27, 2007
(offline)
posts: 711
joined: 9-8-2006
DAJB
I've always felt the whole concept of a “hate crime” and the laws that define them simply feed prejudice and ill-feeling towards the minorities they are supoposed to protect. They are a product of blinkered political correctness.

I disagree, and I hope you can look upward in thread to understand how hate crimes (which I'm growing more and more to feel are misnamed) are crimes in addition to the other crime. Kind of like when an arsonist kills someone in one of their fires. They get hit with arson and possibly murder or manslaughter.

I would also say that calling it “political correctness” is just a way of dog whistling for a reaction. If you think it through, and know the facts of what hate crimes are, you'll probably see that.

If a crimininal kills a white person, a black person, a Christian, a Jew and a Muslim, they are all still dead. Their families all suffer the same loss. Passing a law that says the crime against one of them is different to the others simply creates ill-feeling towards that community.

You'll get no disagreement from me here. But you miss the definition of a hate crime, which is that the crime is meant to send a message to a group of people. Hanging someone is murder. Lynching to make sure people know they are unwelcome is murder *and* a terrorist act.


It's effectively saying a white life is worth less than a black one; or a muslim life is worth more than a Jewish or Christian one.

See, that's the thing. You're completely wrong on this one, because that's not the point at all. You just infer that, and say that's the reason hate crimes exist. Now the question is, do you know that argument is b.s.? Or do you just feel unentitled somehow?

If a group of chinese kill some whites to drive the whites that live there out of the neighborhood, that's still a hate crime. Or don't you think that terrorizing a group of people based on skin color is a crime?

There was a time when most of the so-called civilised world could claim to have left behind the mediaeval idea that people should be punished for their beliefs. Now, in the rush to be seen to be politically correct, politicians are falling over themselves to make every crime different depending upon the skin colour, religion, age, hair colour and shoe-size of the victim.

That's not the purpose of hate crimes at all. Hate crimes are meant to protect groups of people from being terrorized off property or out of participating in our society, and they cover anyone who attempts to do so.

So before you worry about political correctness, perhaps you should think about whether it should be a crime to terrorize people into leaving their homes, their schools, their churches. Or are you stuck with dog whistle politics?
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:51PM
Aurora Moon at 10:15AM, Aug. 27, 2007
(offline)
posts: 2,630
joined: 1-7-2006
yeah, I agree with Mapaghimagsik…

just because a white person kills a black person to steal his stuff or something doesn't mean it was a hate crime… same the way around.

However… if a white person was killing a black person moving into the white man's neighborhood to send a message to all the other blacks out there….like “Blacks not welcome here!!”, then yes, that is a hate crime.

It's basically a terrorist-related crime, if you had to call it that.
I'm on hitatus while I redo one of my webcomics. Be sure to check it out when I'n done! :)
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:10AM
mapaghimagsik at 10:22AM, Aug. 27, 2007
(offline)
posts: 711
joined: 9-8-2006
Aurora Moon
It's basically a terrorist-related crime, if you had to call it that.

Yeah, the word is so overloaded….but as Ozo said (what, another agreement? Has anyone checked the temperature of hades?) its probably the purest form of terrorism.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:51PM
TnTComic at 10:47AM, Aug. 27, 2007
(offline)
posts: 681
joined: 6-25-2007
You know, i'm not sure its such a good thing to make hate illegal.
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:31PM
Aurora Moon at 10:56AM, Aug. 27, 2007
(offline)
posts: 2,630
joined: 1-7-2006
TnTComic
You know, I'm not sure its such a good thing to make hate illegal.

it's fine to hate, as long as you don't act out on that hate and try to force your beliefs about a certain type of people down others' throats.

This is just a example… but say I was a deeply anti-religious person who HATED everything about religious people. I don't want them living in the same neighborhood as me, etc….. but as long as I don't really do anything in the form of harm toward other people, I'm allowed my opinions and such.

But if I murder the highly religious family across the street in some warped attempt to tell the world that I felt that religious people wasn't welcome at all in my neighborhood… well that's when it turns illegal.

The same would be true especially if I DIDN'T MURDER them, but did other nasty things like spray-painting their house at night writing messages like: “Religious people should die!!!Go back where you come from, not welcome here!!” and throwing rocks into their houses.

Hate is Okay, as long as it's CIVIL HATE. if that makes sense. No use acting like such a uncivilized barbarian murdering or acting out on something just because he/she happened to hate something/somebody. Those types of people would be better off venting about their hates in their own blogs. Much less bloodythirsty that way, eh?
I'm on hitatus while I redo one of my webcomics. Be sure to check it out when I'n done! :)
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:10AM
TnTComic at 11:05AM, Aug. 27, 2007
(offline)
posts: 681
joined: 6-25-2007
Its the same reasoning that I use for legalizing drugs. We already have laws in place for when people misbehave, why must we make the reason they misbehave illegal as well?

last edited on July 14, 2011 4:31PM
Aurora Moon at 11:13AM, Aug. 27, 2007
(offline)
posts: 2,630
joined: 1-7-2006
TnTComic
Its the same reasoning that I use for legalizing drugs. We already have laws in place for when people misbehave, why must we make the reason they misbehave illegal as well?

Eh, I don't know if drugs is such a good example there.

After all, drugs doesn't have any Adgenda at all. They simply just exist.

Now humans on the other hand….Humans are complex, and sometimes the violence humans carry out is actually meant to carry an message out to others.

And the message of such acts of violence would be this: “Those certain types of people should be treated less than they are. They should be treated like animals, kept seperate from OUR type! It should be allowed for us to treat those people less than human and get away with it, even in murder!”

Just like how the terrorists did with thier 9/11 did. They basically sent an message to America about how they felt, and look at what happened.

I just feel that our message to THAT message should be: “NO. NOT HAPPENING!”
It is there to discourage MORE people from starting to think in that same way.
After all, it's so easy to hate something that you feel is too different from you… without even realizing it, you might even start to justify such horrible acts against a certain type of people that had the traits that you felt to be too different. Making public acts against certain groups like that illegal sereves as an wake-up call for people who might had started down that path.
I'm on hitatus while I redo one of my webcomics. Be sure to check it out when I'n done! :)
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:10AM
TnTComic at 11:20AM, Aug. 27, 2007
(offline)
posts: 681
joined: 6-25-2007
I guess i'm just not comfortable with banning emotions.
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:31PM
mapaghimagsik at 11:28AM, Aug. 27, 2007
(offline)
posts: 711
joined: 9-8-2006
TnTComic
I guess i'm just not comfortable with banning emotions.

And who said anything about that? Hate crimes are still actions. This is about driving people out of homes, schools and churches.

Are you okay with that? I bet you're not, or if you are, we can have that discussion too.

So aside from the fact that ‘hate’ is in the name (perhaps you can think of a better name) its not about emotions, its about actions.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:51PM
Aurora Moon at 11:29AM, Aug. 27, 2007
(offline)
posts: 2,630
joined: 1-7-2006
TnTComic
I guess I'm just not comfortable with banning emotions.

it's actually more in the head than in the heart. So it would be banning certain types of LOGIC and wrongly cultural upbringing, not Emotions!

Most people who had such bigoted ways in such a manner that they was more likely to act out against groups of people…. those same people were RAISED BY people who had the same set of “logic”.

Take this woman in the south who used to be one of my net friends, until I found out about her…. upbringing and how she couldn't shake free the “bigoted logic”. She knew that her views weren't considered “right” but she had some prejudiced “feelings” against “black” people due to how her family had been bigoted and prejudiced for GENERATIONS!!! So she couldn't help but hate, since it was how she had been raised… it was how she was brought up, and her logic was hardwired that way. And even her great-grandfather was in the KKK, killing blacks and burning their corpses.

So no, I do not believe it is about banning emitions… more like a way of thinking, a type of dangerous logic.
I'm on hitatus while I redo one of my webcomics. Be sure to check it out when I'n done! :)
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:10AM
mapaghimagsik at 11:32AM, Aug. 27, 2007
(offline)
posts: 711
joined: 9-8-2006
Aurora Moon
TnTComic
I guess I'm just not comfortable with banning emotions.

it's actually more in the head than in the heart. So it would be banning certain types of LOGIC and wrongly cultural upbringing, not Emotions!

Most people who had such bigoted ways in such a manner that they was more likely to act out against groups of people…. those same people were RAISED BY people who had the same set of “logic”.

Take this woman in the south who used to be one of my net friends, until I found out about her…. upbringing and how she couldn't shake free the “bigoted logic”. She knew that her views weren't considered “right” but she had some prejudiced “feelings” against “black” people due to how her family had been bigoted and prejudiced for GENERATIONS!!! So she couldn't help but hate, since it was how she had been raised… it was how she was brought up, and her logic was hardwired that way. And even her great-grandfather was in the KKK, killing blacks and burning their corpses.

So no, I do not believe it is about banning emitions… more like a way of thinking, a type of dangerous logic.

Racists rejoice! You can still hate blacks, latinos and homosexuals all you want. Its when you run around in the white sheet hanging nooses that the law will start to cause problems :D
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:51PM
ozoneocean at 11:37AM, Aug. 27, 2007
(online)
posts: 25,115
joined: 1-2-2004
TnTComic
I guess i'm just not comfortable with banning emotions.
lol! I think you've been trying to work things around so that you can make that joke but it hasn't really worked that smoothly… Ended up a bit belaboured unfortunately.

——————
Anyway, it's a complicated issue. And as TNT sort of gets at, at the “slogan” type level things get a bit confused, it's like “terror” crimes: complete nonsense because that's a word for an emotion, “terrorism” is quite a different thing. The problem is that the legal system is never easy to understand and laws of any kind can be interpreted a thousand different ways, no matter how well intentioned or strict they were supposed to be. I suppose the real issue in Western countries specifically isn't the laws themselves, but the problems that give rise to them initially at one end of the equation, and the power relationships at the other- poor people can't afford the same justice (the level of advocacy) as wealthier ones and therefore they're more likely to receive harsher penalties for the same crimes.

Also, people from poorer or minority backgrounds will often find crimes against them not taken as seriously, investigated as thoroughly, or prosecuted as heavily as those of wealthier or majority backgrounds.
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:27PM
Aurora Moon at 11:48AM, Aug. 27, 2007
(offline)
posts: 2,630
joined: 1-7-2006
I don't think anybody can ever claim that the laws set in place is perfect.

Money corrupts, after all.

But at least we can say that such laws prevents it from becoming too much of a common occurance….to the point where such things would actually be accepted as “the way things are.”

It cuts it down competely to the point where it's not everywhere, you know?

And sometimes that's really needed in place for a lack of a perfect system.

and alas, there's no such thing as perfect.
I'm on hitatus while I redo one of my webcomics. Be sure to check it out when I'n done! :)
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:10AM

Forgot Password
©2011 WOWIO, Inc. All Rights Reserved