LadySkinsFan Posted March 8, 2014 Share Posted March 8, 2014 My thoughts on "hate" crime. This designation is more like "thought policing" by assigning more penalty based on someone's thoughts about a demographic group. I believe that there are enough laws on the books to deal with criminal acts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted March 8, 2014 Share Posted March 8, 2014 My thoughts on "hate crime". When someone seeks out a gay gay (or some other demographic), and assaults him simply because he is part of that group, then that person is not merely assaulting one person. He's assaulting the entire demographic group He's committing terrorism. And it is a different crime. (Well, unless you subscribe to the school that there is no such thing as terrorism, it's just a violation of existing criminal statutes.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LadySkinsFan Posted March 8, 2014 Share Posted March 8, 2014 What about crimes committed against women, a much larger demographic group than homosexuals or blacks. I don't see those kinds of crimes termed "hate crimes" nor termed terrorism against women. Some people (mostly men) seek out women to harm. We don't term those men terrorists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted March 8, 2014 Share Posted March 8, 2014 What about crimes committed against women, a much larger demographic group than homosexuals or blacks. I don't see those kinds of crimes termed "hate crimes" nor termed terrorism against women. Some people (mostly men) seek out women to harm. We don't term those men terrorists. Perhaps because my description described a motive, a thought process. Not a demographic. See, there's a difference between a crime committed because somebody wants to "send a message to all women", or some such, and every crime in which a woman is a victim. To me, that's the definition of terrorism: A crime committed for the purpose of creating fear in every member of the target demographic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted March 8, 2014 Share Posted March 8, 2014 Whether they offend me is kind of irrelevant to me personally. What I find offensive is when folks want to insist that I like it. This is my main disconnect. You don't have to like it, and no one is insisting you do. All people are asking is that you don't treat them any differently because of it. Just tolerate it. That's all. Absolutely nothing is requested beyond that. ~BAng Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nonniey Posted March 8, 2014 Share Posted March 8, 2014 Perhaps because my description described a motive, a thought process. Not a demographic. See, there's a difference between a crime committed because somebody wants to "send a message to all women", or some such, and every crime in which a woman is a victim. To me, that's the definition of terrorism: A crime committed for the purpose of creating fear in every member of the target demographic. Problem is that this type of law would be too easily abused allowing the State to attribute motives that may not be there (like the case this law was partially named after). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nonniey Posted March 8, 2014 Share Posted March 8, 2014 This is my main disconnect. You don't have to like it, and no one is insisting you do. All people are asking is that you don't treat them any differently because of it. Just tolerate it. That's all. Absolutely nothing is requested beyond that. ~BAng Where have you been? Have you been reading this thread? Yeah they are insisting he like it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbo Posted March 8, 2014 Share Posted March 8, 2014 I was originally tempted to intervene by the uncontentious mangling (no harm intended by participants) of the subject of substance abuse or dependence (i.e. "alcoholism") that occurred and continued in this discussion, somewhat from "all sides", once it was in play. I hoped it would die off, and it's no big deal regarding the posters involved at all, but now I am going to do that intervention (inside jokes abound) on that derailing tangent---so let's just drop it. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbo Posted March 8, 2014 Share Posted March 8, 2014 Where have you been? Have you been reading this thread? Yeah they are insisting he like it. I haven't time to go re-read the thread, but I find that interesting and have missed such on previous scans in here. If you would, direct me to such a post. Just asking sincerely, amigo, not messing with you. I'm just curious (not even "mod" curious ) as to how such a post was written. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dont Taze Me Bro Posted March 8, 2014 Share Posted March 8, 2014 I thought the Bible also taught to love thy neighbor, turn the other cheek, not to judge others, not to hate, etc.? Trust me, all the homosexual men and women I know on a personal level, or work with, don't want you praying for their soul no more than I do as a heterosexual male. I consider myself a Christian, and I do not think we have a vengeful God, I was taught that we have a loving God. So why would God create homosexuality if he had a problem with it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted March 8, 2014 Share Posted March 8, 2014 Problem is that this type of law would be too easily abused allowing the State to attribute motives that may not be there (like the case this law was partially named after). That's what we have juries for. We seem to trust them to rule on whether a crime was premeditated, for example. I haven't time to go re-read the thread, but I find that interesting and have missed such on previous scans in here. If you would, direct me to such a post. Just asking sincerely, amigo, not messing with you. I'm just curious (not even "mod" curious ) as to how such a post was written. I haven't done a statistical analysis, but my uncalibrated gut says that more than half of the posts on the first page were attacking KC for expressing the opinion that he didn't endorse homosexuality, but he was certainly willing to tolerate one on the team. I think "you're demanding that I like it" seems a bit of an exaggeration. But I can see where such a feeling might come from. KC's comments seemed to pretty much along the lines of "don;t like, but will tolerate". And it seems to not be good enough for a lot of people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbo Posted March 8, 2014 Share Posted March 8, 2014 Got it--clearer now. I thought "he" was zguy, not KC, and zguy was being told he "had to like it", which seemed weird to me, even for the tailgate. I figured a lot of personal interpretation of "like it" would be involved for most anyone. Just the three terms tolerance, acceptance, and approval all have specific "dictionary" usages as well as overlaps that can challenge clear communication. Given the complexity of we hoomans and modern language, and even how people often seem to have differing ideas of what simple terms/phrasing mean to each other, that we can exchange conflicting thoughts as well as we do is impressive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LadySkinsFan Posted March 8, 2014 Share Posted March 8, 2014 Perhaps because my description described a motive, a thought process. Not a demographic. See, there's a difference between a crime committed because somebody wants to "send a message to all women", or some such, and every crime in which a woman is a victim. To me, that's the definition of terrorism: A crime committed for the purpose of creating fear in every member of the target demographic. Excuse me, but terrorizing women and committing crimes against them does indeed "send a message to all women" where their true place in society is: subservient to men, at home raising the children and doing all the housework, and not out in society. These men use fear of violence to attempt to control women, and to some degree it works. That is true in the United States and in all countries around the world, to a greater or lessor degree. Tell me that you don't know men who think that women should not hold jobs, not get paid the same for the same work (most of the Republicans in Congress), should not have access to birth control/abortion so they are producing children or being castigated for wanting to limit the number of children they have, and so on. Superficially, women have made some strides, but the extreme right wing are trying like hell to put us back into our mandated little box. We're not going back in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted March 8, 2014 Share Posted March 8, 2014 Oh, I assume zguy (trivia: my iPhone tries to convert "zguy" into "shut") was speaking of himself. Just pointing out that the line "all we're demanding is tolerance" gets thrown around a lot. (Including, I'm absolutely certain, by me). But then we (and I'm intentionally including myself in that "we") go and dump on people merely for expressing disapproval. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted March 8, 2014 Share Posted March 8, 2014 Although it also occurs to me that there's a flip side to this, too. 1) No one is legislating that people be punished if they express disapproval of homosexuality. They're condemning it. But not legislating it. 2) And, if you want to pick up a megaphone, and step up onto the soap box in the public square, and loudly deliver your condemnation of homosexuals (or anything else) . . . And, when you step down from the soap box, and someone else takes the same megaphone, and steps up onto the same soap box, and condemns what you just said . . . . ? Then "you're picking on me" seems a bit . . . juvenile? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdamB Posted March 8, 2014 Share Posted March 8, 2014 I think those of us (general term) in our society (and I am sure pretty much all societies) have issues with the concept of free speech and tolerance, both in terms of our "rights" but more importantly in regards to application of the phrase "two-way street". Using an example unrelated to sexuality: Right after I moved to Louisiana, I was talking with the father of a friend of ours. Apparently, there had been a DJ/radio pundit in the New Orleans area who had made some remarks that rubbed a lot of people the wrong way (I do not remember what the subject of the conversation was, but I do remember that the comment was fairly rude). Others were offended by his comments so they complained and started picketing. My friend's father went off on how those who were complaining were trying to silence the commentator and were being intolerant and should have been arrested for violating his "rights". I argued that the guy's words were also intolerant of others, and those who had issues with what he said also had the right to voice their opinions on it. Nope...friend's father did not accept that argument at all - in his mind, one group/person had the right to say or do whatever they wanted, and the other group had no right to respond to it. Cousins' made a statement that, because of history in this country and what is being said by the some very vocal Christians, triggers a negative response for many whether he intended his comments to be negative or not (the second part of his comments). He has every right to make them, and I support his right to do so. I also support the right for others to speak against his comments. However, for anyone to make the statement that those who did not like his statement think he should be forced or insist he "like" homosexuality is wrong factually in regards to this thread but also hyperbole that is becoming increasingly used as part of the persecution-complex movement that is part of the Religious Right's current toolkit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dfitzo53 Posted March 8, 2014 Share Posted March 8, 2014 All I'm saying is there's no proof of how homosexual feeling start or why and the claim of something being acceptable because you were born that way is flawed. People are born with disease and shortcomings, we don't automatically accept them because they were born that way. Wait, we don't? I thought that was the whole message of Christianity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koolblue13 Posted March 8, 2014 Share Posted March 8, 2014 What about crimes committed against women, a much larger demographic group than homosexuals or blacks. I don't see those kinds of crimes termed "hate crimes" nor termed terrorism against women. Some people (mostly men) seek out women to harm. We don't term those men terrorists. I just watched a really funny louis ck skit about that this morning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nonniey Posted March 9, 2014 Share Posted March 9, 2014 Oh, I assume zguy (trivia: my iPhone tries to convert "zguy" into "shut") was speaking of himself. Just pointing out that the line "all we're demanding is tolerance" gets thrown around a lot. (Including, I'm absolutely certain, by me). But then we (and I'm intentionally including myself in that "we") go and dump on people merely for expressing disapproval. Point is people are dumping on Kirk Cousins because his welcome didn't include or express approval not because he expressed disapproval. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LadySkinsFan Posted March 9, 2014 Share Posted March 9, 2014 Kirk Cousins is entitled to his opinion just like anyone else. I got the impression that he thinks homosexuality is a sin and would try to introduce said gay athlete to Christianity, I'm guessing to show this teammate how not to sin. If he was talking to me, I'd tell him I'm an atheist and don't believe in sin, so he should go witness to someone else. But that's me. In my workplace, I don't ever talk about religion, homosexuality, or politics. That's just good business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mistertim Posted March 9, 2014 Share Posted March 9, 2014 Point is people are dumping on Kirk Cousins because his welcome didn't include or express approval not because he expressed disapproval. No, it is because he seemingly used passive-aggressive wording to accept someone but at the same time say the person was a sinner and needed to find jesus (assuming he wasn't a christian already or couldn't be a true christian if he was gay). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inigo Montoya Posted March 9, 2014 Share Posted March 9, 2014 Wait, we don't? I thought that was the whole message of Christianity. Yes you are correct and I worded that incorrectly and certainly I accept people from all backgrounds and walks of life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dfitzo53 Posted March 9, 2014 Share Posted March 9, 2014 Yes you are correct and I worded that incorrectly and certainly I accept people from all backgrounds and walks of life. Yeah when I read it over again I think I got what you meant originally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.