Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Blue Lion on October 22, 2009, 08:01:03 pm
-
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/10/22/hate.crimes/index.html
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Senate passed groundbreaking legislation Thursday that would make it a federal crime to assault an individual because of his or her sexual orientation or gender identity.
The expanded federal hate crimes law now goes to President Obama's desk. Obama has pledged to sign the measure, which was added to a $680 billion defense authorization bill.
President George W. Bush had threatened to veto a similar measure.
The bill is named for Matthew Shepard, a gay Wyoming teenager who died after being kidnapped and severely beaten in October 1998, and James Byrd Jr., an African-American man dragged to death in Texas the same year.
"Knowing that the president will sign it, unlike his predecessor, has made all the hard work this year to pass it worthwhile," said Judy Shepard, board president of the Matthew Shepard Foundation named for her son. "Hate crimes continue to affect far too many Americans who are simply trying to live their lives honestly, and they need to know that their government will protect them from violence, and provide appropriate justice for victims and their families."
Several religious groups have expressed concern that a hate-crimes law could be used to criminalize conservative speech relating to subjects such as abortion or homosexuality.
Attorney General Eric Holder has asserted that any federal hate-crimes law would be used only to prosecute violent acts based on bias, as opposed to the prosecution of speech based on controversial racial or religious beliefs.
Holder called Thursday's 68-29 Senate vote to approve the defense spending bill that included the hate crimes measure "a milestone in helping protect Americans from the most heinous bias-motivated violence."
"The passage of this legislation will give the Justice Department and our state and local law enforcement partners the tools we need to deter and prosecute these acts of violence," he said in a statement.
Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, called the measure "our nation's first major piece of civil rights legislation for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people."
"Too many in our community have been devastated by hate violence," Solmonese said in a statement. "We now can begin the important steps to erasing hate in our country."
This month, Obama told the Human Rights Campaign, the country's largest gay rights group, that the nation still needs to make significant changes to ensure equal rights for gays and lesbians.
"Despite the progress we've made, there are still laws to change and hearts to open," he said during his address at the dinner for the Human Rights Campaign. "This fight continues now, and I'm here with the simple message: I'm here with you in that fight."
Among other things, Obama has called for the repeal of the ban on gays serving openly in the military, the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. He also has urged Congress to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and pass the Domestic Partners Benefit and Obligations Act.
The Defense of Marriage Act defines marriage, for federal purposes, as a legal union between a man and a woman. It allows states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages. The Domestic Partners Benefit and Obligations Act would extend family benefits now available to heterosexual federal employees to gay and lesbian federal workers.
More than 77,000 hate-crime incidents were reported by the FBI between 1998 and 2007, or "nearly one hate crime for every hour of every day over the span of a decade," Holder told the Senate Judiciary Committee in June.
The FBI, Holder added, reported 7,624 hate-crime incidents in 2007, the most current year with complete data.
-
Several religious groups have expressed concern that a hate-crimes law could be used to criminalize conservative speech relating to subjects such as abortion or homosexuality.
I know what they mean to say, but for some reason, the way its been said makes me laugh...
-
Awesome. Disadvantaged groups require special protection, or they're going to have to live in fear.
-
Several religious groups have expressed concern that a hate-crimes law could be used to criminalize conservative speech relating to subjects such as abortion or homosexuality.
I know what they mean to say, but for some reason, the way its been said makes me laugh...
White Christians being persecuted...cry me a river.
-
...and drown in it
-
Discrimination against Christians, males, or White individuals could become a problem in society in the future. At the moment, however, there's no real scientific evidence for it.
So, yeah, don't think they have much to worry about.
-
I'll say it now to save some trouble. (even though it won't)
Beating up a guy who is black/white/gay/whatever = assault
Beating up a guy BECAUSE he is black/white/gay/whatever = assault + hate crime
-
Not saying it's right to discrimate against anyone, but white Christians *****ing because they can't spew factually unbased hate-filled rhetoric from the pulpit anymore just doesn't generate any sympathy from me.
-
The thing is that they can keep spewing as much hate as they want. They're *****ing about stuff that isn't even real. They're all delusional.
-
Thing is, and in fairness, there does need to be care taken, some hate crimes are obvious, such as the ones given, others are more subtle, and some seem like hate crimes but are not, in my opinion.
As an example, I consider a priest telling his congregation that Homosexuals should be stoned as a Hate Crime, even though it says so in the Bible, because he is inciting violence against Homosexuals, however, I consider a priest saying 'I believe that Abortion is Murder', even though the Bible doesn't even mention abortion, is not a hate crime, however, encouraging the flock to call women who have had abortion murderers, is a hate crime, it might not be a physical attack but it is an attack deliberately designed to harm both psychologically and socially.
-
As an example, I consider a priest telling his congregation that Homosexuals should be stoned as a Hate Crime, even though it says so in the Bible, because he is inciting violence against Homosexuals, however, I consider a priest saying 'I believe that Abortion is Murder', even though the Bible doesn't even mention abortion, is not a hate crime
Until it turns into this... (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_George_Tiller)
People are stupid. People who are told that God believes something are not only stupid, but extremely dangerous--they feel like if they don't do something about it, God willne displeased with them/America/mankind. Thus Army of God whackjobs kill abortion doctors, California votes for Prop 8, and Westboro has free reign to call dead soldiers faggots.
-
The thing is that they can keep spewing as much hate as they want. They're *****ing about stuff that isn't even real. They're all delusional.
Please don't make blanket statements like this. I'm not quite sure if you were talking about just the people that spew idiotic stuff, or the entirety of white Christians. I like to think that I'm not delusional, and my pastor doesn't even talk about politics or race or anything, in any context. (If it was just the idiots, carry on.)
Anyway, back on topic: I'm not quite sure what they mean by "criminalize," since saying something agasint someone or somegroup isn't a crime, at least as far a I know.
However, this caught my eye:
"Too many in our community have been devastated by hate violence," Solmonese said in a statement. "We now can begin the important steps to erasing hate in our country."
And this is going to stop that? If they didn't go to jail for it already, this isn't going to help, and if they have, going back either won't be a problem or they've stopped already. This bill doesn't really do anything.
People are stupid. People who are told that God believes something are not only stupid, but extremely dangerous
I believe that God thinks some things are wrong, does that make me extremely dangerous? Then again, it doesn't really matter what I think God believes, since I'm not God, and am not going to take it upon myself to do His work in His stead. That would be... questionable, at the very least. People who are told that God believes something are being preached to, not absorbing that though for their own. Assuming that people who hear something automatically think it to be true is almost as stupid as some people are.
-
Is there something I'm missing?
The legislation only makes assaulting based on sexual orientation a crime. Why are people afraid that they won't be able to speak against homosexuality?
-
And this is going to stop that? If they didn't go to jail for it already, this isn't going to help, and if they have, going back either won't be a problem or they've stopped already. This bill doesn't really do anything.
The addition of federal charges may help a smidge. I'm gonna guess white on black crime went down a bit when it wasn't so fashionable anymore.
-
Is there something I'm missing?
The legislation only makes assaulting based on sexual orientation a crime. Why are people afraid that they won't be able to speak against homosexuality?
Because they're afraid to say what they really mean: "If we act like it's bad to hurt them, people might actually respect them."
-
I'll say it now to save some trouble. (even though it won't)
Beating up a guy who is black/white/gay/whatever = assault
Beating up a guy BECAUSE he is black/white/gay/whatever = assault + hate crime
Beating up a guy is assault PERIOD.
Like it or not, hating someone for an irrational reason shouldn't be any more of a crime than not liking ice cream. People can do what they want as long as it's not inconveniencing other people. I'm sure plenty of people hate me, but I don't care, and I won't until they do something to me because of that hate. But it's not the hate that will make me sad, it's what they did as a result of that hate.
When you beat a guy up because of his race, for example, hate is the cause of the crime. Hate is the cause. In a different situation, someone might beat up a guy because he's mugging him and he needs money. Needing money caused him to beat up the guy. Needing money isn't a crime. Causes of crimes CANNOT be crimes themselves.
Also, just for clarification, what I said isn't what I think US law is, it's what I think it should be. I know what you said probably is in fact what the current actual law is, but myeh. Ignore my post if you think that it's stupid. :p EDIT: Or no, better yet, tell me why it's stupid.
-
Beating up a guy is assault PERIOD.
Like it or not, hating someone for an irrational reason shouldn't be any more of a crime than not liking ice cream. People can do what they want as long as it's not inconveniencing other people. I'm sure plenty of people hate me, but I don't care, and I won't until they do something to me because of that hate. But it's not the hate that will make me sad, it's what they did as a result of that hate.
When you beat a guy up because of his race, for example, hate is the cause of the crime. Hate is the cause. In a different situation, someone might beat up a guy because he's mugging him and he needs money. Needing money caused him to beat up the guy. Needing money isn't a crime. Causes of crimes CANNOT be crimes themselves.
Also, just for clarification, what I said isn't what I think US law is, it's what I think it should be. I know what you said probably is in fact what the current actual law is, but myeh. Ignore my post if you think that it's stupid. :p EDIT: Or no, better yet, tell me why it's stupid.
Well that's great. Because hating someone isn't a crime. You can (even though you don't) hate any people all you want.
Hate the Jews? Great, free country. Blacks? Whatever. Gays? Get in line.
Go out and beat some up because of it? Helloooo extra sentencing.
People get different charges and sentences for murder all the time based on intent. I mean you killed someone, why shouldn't matter, right? But it does, and no one bats an eye at that. People getting longer prison sentences for some murders isn't an issue, why should people getting longer prison time for some assaults?
-
Thing is, for many of the extreme groups, if you take away the ability to de-humanise their target, to make their lives seem worth somehow less than other peoples', you take away their biggest weapon, you don't get that gestalt of social acceptability that allows the hatred to continue. 'Everyone else does it' is probably the most common denial of responsibility in the world.
-
Differences in murder sentences are based on "premeditated" or planned (includes when doing something else that could lead to intentional murder, such as hijacking something), and spur-of-the-moment stuff. NOT on what the motivations or intent were. Manslaughter is when killing was not intended. There is absolutely no change in sentence based on WHY someone killed someone else.
-
why was this attached to a defense bill?
-
I saw the president's recent speech to one of the major gay human rights organization. I thought it was a powerful speech and he promised to do something about discrimination and hate crimes. I'm glad he's finally taken action on at least this issue. I believe we still have a long way to go though.
-
why was this attached to a defense bill?
As far as I'm aware in the US, this is common, it's a way of adding sweeteners to less popular Bills, people are so busy talking about the hate-crime stuff that they don't notice the contents of the boring defence Bill.
Whilst I don't hold with the idea, as far as I'm aware, it's not a new one.
-
Differences in murder sentences are based on "premeditated" or planned (includes when doing something else that could lead to intentional murder, such as hijacking something), and spur-of-the-moment stuff. NOT on what the motivations or intent were. Manslaughter is when killing was not intended. There is absolutely no change in sentence based on WHY someone killed someone else.
Because sentencing allows for judges and juries a wide range of time served. Hate crime legislation is mostly aimed at sentence lengthening. That's why you really can't be charged with just a hate crime, there has to be an underlying charge to get added on to.
-
People get different charges and sentences for murder all the time based on intent. I mean you killed someone, why shouldn't matter, right? But it does, and no one bats an eye at that. People getting longer prison sentences for some murders isn't an issue, why should people getting longer prison time for some assaults?
But there's a difference between having a more malicious intent and committing a crime in a more malicious manner. Murder is murder, but I wouldn't be opposed to someone that murdered someone by gouging the person's eyes and brains out with a crayon having a longer prison sentence than someone that murdered them by injecting some kind of poison into them quickly.
And there's also a difference between a cause of a crime being a crime and a cause of a crime making the crime less forgivable. I'd be more willing to forgive someone for murdering my brother if my brother had been making fun of him every single day for the past year than if my brother didn't say "bless you" when the guy sneezed. But in the latter case would I charge the guy with "being lethally irritable" (or something to that effect) in addition to murder? No.
And if there were two instances where people commit the exact same crime for the exact same reason under the exact same circumstances and they got a different sentence, I would bat my eye. Several times. I'd probably even write an angry letter or two.
-
why was this attached to a defense bill?
Because it was a rider?
-
why was this attached to a defense bill?
Because it was a rider?
Yup. No line item veto for the president. Either the president would have to reject all of the (supposedly) good and healthy defense stuff to reject this specific part of the bill, or he'd have to pass everything.
-
People get different charges and sentences for murder all the time based on intent. I mean you killed someone, why shouldn't matter, right? But it does, and no one bats an eye at that. People getting longer prison sentences for some murders isn't an issue, why should people getting longer prison time for some assaults?
But there's a difference between having a more malicious intent and committing a crime in a more malicious manner. Murder is murder, but I wouldn't be opposed to someone that murdered someone by gouging the person's eyes and brains out with a crayon having a longer prison sentence than someone that murdered them by injecting some kind of poison into them quickly.
And there's also a difference between a cause of a crime being a crime and a cause of a crime making the crime less forgivable. I'd be more willing to forgive someone for murdering my brother if my brother had been making fun of him every single day for the past year than if my brother didn't say "bless you" when the guy sneezed. But in the latter case would I charge the guy with "being lethally irritable" (or something to that effect) in addition to murder? No.
And if there were two instances where people commit the exact same crime for the exact same reason under the exact same circumstances and they got a different sentence, I would bat my eye. Several times. I'd probably even write an angry letter or two.
So you agree that instances of assault based on solely on gender, race or whatnot deserve harsher sentences? I'm kinda lost on the post there.
A guy beats up another guy because he tried to hook up with his girl, another guy beats up a guy because he thought he looked gay. Same time served or different time served?
-
I'll say it now to save some trouble. (even though it won't)
Beating up a guy who is black/white/gay/whatever = assault
Beating up a guy BECAUSE he is black/white/gay/whatever = assault + hate crime
Beating up a guy is assault PERIOD.
Like it or not, hating someone for an irrational reason shouldn't be any more of a crime than not liking ice cream. People can do what they want as long as it's not inconveniencing other people. I'm sure plenty of people hate me, but I don't care, and I won't until they do something to me because of that hate. But it's not the hate that will make me sad, it's what they did as a result of that hate.
When you beat a guy up because of his race, for example, hate is the cause of the crime. Hate is the cause. In a different situation, someone might beat up a guy because he's mugging him and he needs money. Needing money caused him to beat up the guy. Needing money isn't a crime. Causes of crimes CANNOT be crimes themselves.
Also, just for clarification, what I said isn't what I think US law is, it's what I think it should be. I know what you said probably is in fact what the current actual law is, but myeh. Ignore my post if you think that it's stupid. :p EDIT: Or no, better yet, tell me why it's stupid.
Simple answer to your question.
A crime targeted against a member of a minority group does greater harm than a simple assault.
Non-selective assault (assault that isn't a 'hate crime') does harm to the target individual by physical and mental distress.
Selective assault does harm to the target individual and places all those who share the selection criteria in a state of fear.
Thus, a hate crime is morally more objectionable. It's the same reason why genocide is a greater crime than mass murder.
-
why was this attached to a defense bill?
Because it was a rider?
Yup. No line item veto for the president. Either the president would have to reject all of the (supposedly) good and healthy defense stuff to reject this specific part of the bill, or he'd have to pass everything.
He's announced he wants to sign it anyways, so it's a moot point on if it was a rider or not in relation to the President.
-
So you agree that instances of assault based on solely on gender, race or whatnot deserve harsher sentences? I'm kinda lost on the post there.
A guy beats up another guy because he tried to hook up with his girl, another guy beats up a guy because he thought he looked gay. Same time served or different time served?
I don't recall saying anything of the sort. Please don't put words in my mouth. Harshness of sentence should be dependent on the severity of the crime.
As for your hypothetical situation, I'd personally give them the same sentence as they both beat people up in what I can only assume to be the same way. Maybe if the second guy ended up breaking all of his target's ribs and putting him into a coma and the first guy only gave his target a nose bleed, I'd be inclined to give the second guy a harsher punishment, but you didn't state any such circumstances. But I'm neither a judge nor a jury, so take that with a grain of salt.
Simple answer to your question.
A crime targeted against a member of a minority group does greater harm than a simple assault.
Non-selective assault (assault that isn't a 'hate crime') does harm to the target individual by physical and mental distress.
Selective assault does harm to the target individual and places all those who share the selection criteria in a state of fear.
Thus, a hate crime is morally more objectionable. It's the same reason why genocide is a greater crime than mass murder.
That sorta makes sense, but I'd imagine that most of the fear of those that fit the selection criteria is caused by the charge of a hate crime itself, or they're just paranoid. Otherwise (I'd imagine, I could be wrong), you can't exactly tell what's a hate crime and what's not. I could go mug the first person I see and confess that I targeted them specifically because of their hair color, but that would be total nonsense. How do people judge something like that?
-
Differences in murder sentences are based on "premeditated" or planned (includes when doing something else that could lead to intentional murder, such as hijacking something), and spur-of-the-moment stuff. NOT on what the motivations or intent were. Manslaughter is when killing was not intended. There is absolutely no change in sentence based on WHY someone killed someone else
Murdering an officer of the law because of his occupation carries a higher penalty in most states, capital in some. Murdering a witness to a crime, same deal. Just depends on what society has established in its hierarchy of evil.
-
That sorta makes sense, but I'd imagine that most of the fear of those that fit the selection criteria is caused by the charge of a hate crime itself, or they're just paranoid.
No, it's not based on paranoia. How did you feel after 9/11? Scared, I imagine. Angry. Americans had been targeted for being Americans, by an outside group who hated us. That's why we were all so frightened. It didn't matter that our odds of being killed by terrorists were smaller than our odds of being hit by lightning. We were afraid because we'd been selectively targeted.
Similarly, Jews after the Holocaust were terrified of a repeat of the Holocaust because they had been selectively targeted for being Jews. They weren't worried about another World War, even though the war had in total killed a great many people at random.
Otherwise (I'd imagine, I could be wrong), you can't exactly tell what's a hate crime and what's not. I could go mug the first person I see and confess that I targeted them specifically because of their hair color, but that would be total nonsense. How do people judge something like that?
...dude, if you're a member of a targeted minority group, you know it. You're a white guy, right? Try walking through a bad neighborhood in Chicago at night. You'll be targeted because of your race.
Now imagine that feeling all the time.
A hate crime has to be proven to be a hate crime. They tend to be obvious. When a gay guy gets hitched to a trailer by a bunch of men and dragged to death, that's probably going to be easy to prove. When eyewitnesses and acquaintances report homophobic behavior, that makes it easier.
The hair color supposition is an example of a common misunderstanding in the field of rights. The reason killing on the basis of hair color probably wouldn't be called a hate crime (more of a bizarre psychosis) is because, historically, people of a certain hair color have not been oppressed or endangered by a majority group.
This is not true for immigrants, Black Americans, GLBT individuals, women, or many other minority groups.
-
People who commit hate crimes usually aren't remorseful, either. They think the person they attacked *deserved* to be punished. That's why they committed the crime in the first place.
-
I don't recall saying anything of the sort. Please don't put words in my mouth. Harshness of sentence should be dependent on the severity of the crime.
That would be why I said I was confused. You even quoted it.
As for your hypothetical situation, I'd personally give them the same sentence as they both beat people up in what I can only assume to be the same way. Maybe if the second guy ended up breaking all of his target's ribs and putting him into a coma and the first guy only gave his target a nose bleed, I'd be inclined to give the second guy a harsher punishment, but you didn't state any such circumstances. But I'm neither a judge nor a jury, so take that with a grain of salt.
So a guy who shoots someone accidentally and a guy who shoots someone for, I dunno, looking at him funny, get the same time? Same severity of crime. Fatal gunshot wound.
A guy drives over someone on the road because he was on his cell phone, another guy runs over a guy because he was sleeping with his girl. Same crime right? Running a guy over. The guy who meant to do it didn't do it any worse?
Of course these people would get wildly different charges in court. Just because the acts themselves are the same doesn't mean they are the same case.
A guy who punches a guy in the face cause he kicked his kid is probably going to get a different sentence than a guy who punches a guy in the face for wearing a pink shirt.
-
So a guy who shoots someone accidentally and a guy who shoots someone for, I dunno, looking at him funny, get the same time? Same severity of crime. Fatal gunshot wound.
A guy drives over someone on the road because he was on his cell phone, another guy runs over a guy because he was sleeping with his girl. Same crime right? Running a guy over. The guy who meant to do it didn't do it any worse?
Touched on this earlier. Motivation is irrelevant, intent is the issue. The accidental shooting will probably be charged with manslaughter, the guy who shot for being looked at funny would get charged for murder. The cell phone guy would get charged with negligence, reckless endagerment, possibly manslaughter if the guy dies, and a ****tonne of traffic/automotive violations. The guy who intentionally ran him over would get charged with attempted murder, murder (again, if the guy died) and a ****tonne of other violations.
To sum up, motivations are irrelevent in the eye of the law (or should be). Intent is the issue.
-
Sure, and the intent in a hate crime is to harm the target and every member of the group they belong to.
Hate crimes are designed to intimidate and repress.
Thus, the intent is why they are more harshly punished.
-
I wasn't arguing against the intent of the hate crime (even if I do disagree), rather clarifying the differences in punishment based on type of crime.
-
I would very much like to engage with your disagreement, because I believe it is a dangerous thing to disagree with.
I'm honestly not sure how you could disagree with such a fundamental tenet of morality and law.
-
Touched on this earlier. Motivation is irrelevant, intent is the issue. The accidental shooting will probably be charged with manslaughter, the guy who shot for being looked at funny would get charged for murder. The cell phone guy would get charged with negligence, reckless endagerment, possibly manslaughter if the guy dies, and a ****tonne of traffic/automotive violations. The guy who intentionally ran him over would get charged with attempted murder, murder (again, if the guy died) and a ****tonne of other violations.
To sum up, motivations are irrelevent in the eye of the law (or should be). Intent is the issue.
Motivation is brought up all the time. Murder for hire for one. Sometimes motivation isn't always known, but when it is, it's certainly brought up and certainly used as a factor in sentencing.
Juries and judges will give harsher or lighter sentences based on the motivation of criminals all the time.
-
That would be why I said I was confused. You even quoted it.
What? I quoted you saying that I think gender/race based crimes should be punished more harshly with a question mark at the end. I apologize, but it looked more like a strawman than an honest question.
So a guy who shoots someone accidentally and a guy who shoots someone for, I dunno, looking at him funny, get the same time? Same severity of crime. Fatal gunshot wound.
A guy drives over someone on the road because he was on his cell phone, another guy runs over a guy because he was sleeping with his girl. Same crime right? Running a guy over. The guy who meant to do it didn't do it any worse?
Of course these people would get wildly different charges in court. Just because the acts themselves are the same doesn't mean they are the same case.
A guy who punches a guy in the face cause he kicked his kid is probably going to get a different sentence than a guy who punches a guy in the face for wearing a pink shirt.
From what I can tell, the only example you gave me where the crimes are actually the same is the last one. And in that last one, they should get the same sentence unless the first guy realized that he was a douche for kicking the kid and decides not to press charges.
And about intent, there's no blanket "ignore intent" tenant in our law system. Killing can be and accident and that's manslaughter. You didn't intend to kill him. But then there's things like "I intended to only hurt him a little," and those things are ignored. Then there are the things GB was talking about which is true.
Wait actually, that's not treated as an intent, that's what he did. People don't explicitly beat people up, but people in effect threaten to beat people up, which is a crime. It also happens to be what he's intending to do, but whatever. Murders also intend to commit murder, but you charge them for committing murder, not intending to commit murder. And so I'm guessing that with motivation and intent, a lot of the crimes that are commit by those things are implicit crimes, with intent completely aside. Also, it's very difficult to discuss this while writing two essays for a debate class.
-
Alright, am I missing something? Is motivation to commit a crime and your intent behind committing a crime somehow magically different?
And did Scotty completely ignore my post about witnesses and police?
-
Motivation and intent are actually different. Motivation describes WHY someone is trying to do something, intent is what they are trying to accomplish.
Also, murdering a police officer or witness is also considered obstruction of justice, and that is where the extra sentencing comes from (and capital punishment can happen for regular murder too).
-
If you do not believe that the intent of a hate crime is to send a message, I really want to yell at you...in a coherent, rational, bilateral way.
Motivation and intent are actually different. Motivation describes WHY someone is trying to do something, intent is what they are trying to accomplish.
This distinction seems arbitrary.
Hate crimes are terrorism. They are one and the same. Don't let the terrorists win.
-
I'm not arguing AT ALL against the classification of hate crimes. For hate crimes, the motivation is wanting to put the "uppity minorities" in their place, the intent is to hurt said member of said group. The difference between intent and motivation is best demonstrated with a murder scenario. If the perpetrator is going to murder someone, the motivation is some incident that happened between the two, or fighting over a relationship or something like that. The intent is to do bodily harm.
(I am NOT trying to argue against the bill in the OP, nor am I trying willfully misunderstand the intent of hate crimes.)
-
For hate crimes, the motivation is wanting to hurt some minority or group (to teach a lesson or some bullcrap reason like that), the intent is to hurt said member of said group.
Do you mean to put a 'not' with one or the other?
Because, if you're going to put a 'not' in that first clause, I want to point you at a little phenomenon called the Uppity Negro, and a little solution called lynching.
It really is the group being targeted. Do you think the 9/11 hijackers gave a crap about Mary J. TwinTowers?
(The arguable difference between terrorism and 'hate crimes' is that terrorism is generally perpetrated by the minority against the majority, and the hate crime vice versa, but fundamentally they operate to send the same message: you are not safe. Nothing can protect you. We will kill you if you do not do what we want.)
-
Hmmm, you are right, I did word that strangely. I'll go edit it.
for the terrorism part, I KNOW it's the group being targeted. During 9/11, the terrorist's motivation was trying to hurt the United States. They intended to do that by crashing planes into the World Trade Center. That was their intent.
The post is changed to (hopefully) be more clear.
We seem to be talking past each other. I am not trying to refute/argue anything.
-
That would be why I said I was confused. You even quoted it.
What? I quoted you saying that I think gender/race based crimes should be punished more harshly with a question mark at the end. I apologize, but it looked more like a strawman than an honest question.
So a guy who shoots someone accidentally and a guy who shoots someone for, I dunno, looking at him funny, get the same time? Same severity of crime. Fatal gunshot wound.
A guy drives over someone on the road because he was on his cell phone, another guy runs over a guy because he was sleeping with his girl. Same crime right? Running a guy over. The guy who meant to do it didn't do it any worse?
Of course these people would get wildly different charges in court. Just because the acts themselves are the same doesn't mean they are the same case.
A guy who punches a guy in the face cause he kicked his kid is probably going to get a different sentence than a guy who punches a guy in the face for wearing a pink shirt.
From what I can tell, the only example you gave me where the crimes are actually the same is the last one. And in that last one, they should get the same sentence unless the first guy realized that he was a douche for kicking the kid and decides not to press charges.
And about intent, there's no blanket "ignore intent" tenant in our law system. Killing can be and accident and that's manslaughter. You didn't intend to kill him. But then there's things like "I intended to only hurt him a little," and those things are ignored. Then there are the things GB was talking about which is true.
Wait actually, that's not treated as an intent, that's what he did. People don't explicitly beat people up, but people in effect threaten to beat people up, which is a crime. It also happens to be what he's intending to do, but whatever. Murders also intend to commit murder, but you charge them for committing murder, not intending to commit murder. And so I'm guessing that with motivation and intent, a lot of the crimes that are commit by those things are implicit crimes, with intent completely aside. Also, it's very difficult to discuss this while writing two essays for a debate class.
Yea the crimes are different because of the motivation and intent behind them. The acts themselves are identical.
Someone took a gun, pulled the trigger and shot someone. What they intended gets them convicted, why they pulled the trigger is what gets them 20 years instead of 10.
Two people can intend to commit the same crime, they can commit the same crime, but if they did it for different reasons they're going to get different prison time. That is why different prison sentences exist.
If you commit a crime for a reason people can at least understand, if not sympathize with, you're going to get less time than a person who commits a crime for a reason they don't understand or can't sympathize with.
Congress (and many other people) can't sympathize with people who commit a crime based on someone's age, gender, race etc etc etc, so they want to give them more time. This bill enables them to give them more time.
-
Scotty, it boils down to mens rea, the person's state of mind at the time of the crime. That's all the difference between reckless endangerment, manslaughter, and murder.
Reckless endangerment is driving with your cell phone on and running over a guy you didn't see because you weren't paying attention. You're still culpable because you shouldve been paying attention, but you had no intention to harm the man.
Manslaughter, in one form, is walking in on your wife in bed with another guy, grabbing a knife on the drawer, and stabbing the man or your wife to death. It gets knocked down to manslaughter because of a heat of the moment defense--your state of mind was clouded by your extreme emotional disturbance.
Murder is killing someone with premeditated intent. You knew a guy who was gay, and because you didn't like him, or for whatever reason, you plotted for however long to kill him. It's worse because you had time to think, so you shouldve changed your mind and let him go.
-
Hmmm, you are right, I did word that strangely. I'll go edit it.
for the terrorism part, I KNOW it's the group being targeted. During 9/11, the terrorist's motivation was trying to hurt the United States. They intended to do that by crashing planes into the World Trade Center. That was their intent.
The post is changed to (hopefully) be more clear.
We seem to be talking past each other. I am not trying to refute/argue anything.
Okay, I agree, a misunderstanding. Sorry for jumping at shadows.
There is the very real (but not necessarily substantial) criticism that defining hate crimes may exacerbate intergroup conflict or fear. I haven't quite figured out my angle on that yet.
-
People seem to be coming up with a suitable example here. So let me give one of my own.
1) Gang member has a beef with another gang. Buys a gun, walks over to someone from the other gang and shoots them dead.
2) Guy has an argument with his boss. Buys a gun, goes to his bosses house and shoots him dead.
3) Terrorist has a beef with America. Buys a gun, goes to a random house and shoots someone dead.
Who should get the longest sentence? The argument I'm seeing is that they were all premeditated murders and therefore should all get the same sentence.
-
People seem to be coming up with a suitable example here. So let me give one of my own.
1) Gang member has a beef with another gang. Buys a gun, walks over to someone from the other gang and shoots them dead.
2) Guy has an argument with his boss. Buys a gun, goes to his bosses house and shoots him dead.
3) Terrorist has a beef with America. Buys a gun, goes to a random house and shoots someone dead.
Who should get the longest sentence? The argument I'm seeing is that they were all premeditated murders and therefore should all get the same sentence.
ban the private ownership of guns and gun crime drops dramatically (from UK so i have simplistic views on the subject. Private gun ownership = bad)
-
That's another topic entirely. I could have just as easily said knife as gun and the question would still be the same.
Let's not derail this topic with another one.
-
People seem to be coming up with a suitable example here. So let me give one of my own.
1) Gang member has a beef with another gang. Buys a gun, walks over to someone from the other gang and shoots them dead.
2) Guy has an argument with his boss. Buys a gun, goes to his bosses house and shoots him dead.
3) Terrorist has a beef with America. Buys a gun, goes to a random house and shoots someone dead.
Who should get the longest sentence? The argument I'm seeing is that they were all premeditated murders and therefore should all get the same sentence.
ban the private ownership of guns and gun crime drops dramatically (from UK so i have simplistic views on the subject. Private gun ownership = bad)
Not to put the topic further off track, but ban anything, people still find a way to exploit said ban.
-
People seem to be coming up with a suitable example here. So let me give one of my own.
1) Gang member has a beef with another gang. Buys a gun, walks over to someone from the other gang and shoots them dead.
2) Guy has an argument with his boss. Buys a gun, goes to his bosses house and shoots him dead.
3) Terrorist has a beef with America. Buys a gun, goes to a random house and shoots someone dead.
Who should get the longest sentence? The argument I'm seeing is that they were all premeditated murders and therefore should all get the same sentence.
The terrorist. He goes to a random house is indicative enough. If he has a beef with a nation or an idea or religion - something for to big and non-uniform - killing a random person won't change anything. Even worse, that random person has nothing to do with it.
At least the other two had a beef with the undividual they killed.
-
Yeah, no. All three crimes are technically the same. All three of them are comitted in the heat of passion, without much in the way of premeditation (Premeditation, in criminal proceedings, being the specific planning of a specific crime for a long time). The only thing that is different is the connection between victim and criminal. As a result, all three crimes should be punished in the exact same way.
-
I'm saying that the connection is the difference. Not a big one, but the terrorist didn't have any actual reason to kill a random guy. He didn't even know him.
That's why it's even less possible to sympathize with him.
-
Whether or not you can sympathize with the killer should really be beside the point.
I submit to you that the reasons for the crime should be completely irrelevant when it comes to punishment. And yes, I do include other excuses, like Drug abuse or whatever in there. "Don't do the crime if you can't do the time" should be true no matter what.
-
I agree with TrashMan. When the crime is meant as a symbolic attack on a group, it is more severe because it harms more people than the victim.
-
Whether or not you can sympathize with the killer should really be beside the point.
I submit to you that the reasons for the crime should be completely irrelevant when it comes to punishment. And yes, I do include other excuses, like Drug abuse or whatever in there. "Don't do the crime if you can't do the time" should be true no matter what.
To use the old tired phrase "stealing to feed your hungry children"
There are sometimes that someone commits a crime that I can't really get all that mad at them for it.
To me, the sentencing phase should be where you either sympathize (or not) with the convicted. There is a long range of time a person can serve, and that time should be set based on what we think about the crime itself.
-
I'm sort of on the wall about this, since, for example, I'm of the opinion that anyone who gets behind the wheel of a car drunk and kills someone has commited Murder, because they were perfectly aware of the risks of Drink-Driving, there might not have been intent to kill, but there was certainly awareness that their actions could directly lead to someone dying, and a choice to ignore that awareness.
-
I saw the president's recent speech to one of the major gay human rights organization. I thought it was a powerful speech and he promised to do something about discrimination and hate crimes. I'm glad he's finally taken action on at least this issue. I believe we still have a long way to go though.
Grrrpl. :( You just hit a pet peeve of mine, so forgive me if I indulge in a minor rant. I go crazy when people keep giving the President primary credit/blame for that which was mostly the work of others. CONGRESS is the one with primary responsibility for the bill. Just like CONGRESS is the one with primary responsibility for bailouts and for war funding. RTFConstitution!!! If we get universal health care, then credit/blame congress first, and the president second. Not the other way around. People tend to give the President more credit/blame than is his practical OR constitutional due, which frankly just increases the effective power of the executive office and IMHO degrades the checks & balances system.
All right, that's done. Not trying to get on anyone in particular's case, but it's an attitude I see way too often that drives me up the wall & across the ceiling. :D
Back on topic...
I definitely agree that if we're going to have hate-crime legislation, homosexuality belongs on the list. Common sense. Heck, I'd say while we're at it we might as well get rid of a specific list and just make it clear that any violent crime targeting any group counts.
As far as whether or not we should have hate crime legislation at all... I'm still not sold. I completely buy Battuta's argument that a "hate crime" is more vile and evil (and why). What I'm not convinced about is the actual value of the law: does the extra penalty really make a difference? Is there any empirical evidence that hate crime legislation reduces the frequency of hate crimes? If there is, I'd love to see it. If there isn't, then hate crime laws are extra (unneeded) complication at best and at worst an opportunity for the law to be abused. But then again, there are enough ways to abuse the system already, so what's one law more or less?
If I had my way, I'd simplify a lot of things. But governments and laws never get simpler: only more complex. Which is worrisome to me, but that's another story. :sigh:
-
I saw the president's recent speech to one of the major gay human rights organization. I thought it was a powerful speech and he promised to do something about discrimination and hate crimes. I'm glad he's finally taken action on at least this issue. I believe we still have a long way to go though.
Grrrpl. :( You just hit a pet peeve of mine, so forgive me if I indulge in a minor rant. I go crazy when people keep giving the President primary credit/blame for that which was mostly the work of others. CONGRESS is the one with primary responsibility for the bill. Just like CONGRESS is the one with primary responsibility for bailouts and for war funding. RTFConstitution!!! If we get universal health care, then credit/blame congress first, and the president second. Not the other way around. People tend to give the President more credit/blame than is his practical OR constitutional due, which frankly just increases the effective power of the executive office and IMHO degrades the checks & balances system.
QFT
-
We should get the Vasudans added to this bill. I know some people in this forum that have advocated hate crimes against Vasudans and even referred to them derogatorily as Zods. Together we could eliminate the anti Vasudan elements in our forum.
-
As far as whether or not we should have hate crime legislation at all... I'm still not sold. I completely buy Battuta's argument that a "hate crime" is more vile and evil (and why). What I'm not convinced about is the actual value of the law: does the extra penalty really make a difference? Is there any empirical evidence that hate crime legislation reduces the frequency of hate crimes? If there is, I'd love to see it. If there isn't, then hate crime laws are extra (unneeded) complication at best and at worst an opportunity for the law to be abused. But then again, there are enough ways to abuse the system already, so what's one law more or less?
Certainly I agree with that, Sushi. And I don't know...it's not a controlled scenario, so it's hard to say.
One thing worth pointing out, however, is that 'legislating morality' does actually work to a degree. It's part of why the Civil Rights Amendment was passed: social psychologists testified that public agreeableness to school desegregation would sharply increase once schools were desegregated.
Opinion sometimes 'follows the leader' when it comes to government decisions like this.
-
I saw the president's recent speech to one of the major gay human rights organization. I thought it was a powerful speech and he promised to do something about discrimination and hate crimes. I'm glad he's finally taken action on at least this issue. I believe we still have a long way to go though.
Grrrpl. :( You just hit a pet peeve of mine, so forgive me if I indulge in a minor rant. I go crazy when people keep giving the President primary credit/blame for that which was mostly the work of others. CONGRESS is the one with primary responsibility for the bill. Just like CONGRESS is the one with primary responsibility for bailouts and for war funding. RTFConstitution!!! If we get universal health care, then credit/blame congress first, and the president second. Not the other way around. People tend to give the President more credit/blame than is his practical OR constitutional due, which frankly just increases the effective power of the executive office and IMHO degrades the checks & balances system.
All right, that's done. Not trying to get on anyone in particular's case, but it's an attitude I see way too often that drives me up the wall & across the ceiling. :D
Sorry I'll keep that in mine... :P
I remember that the whole discussion that night was that the gay community wasn't pleased with Obama's progress. Which I'm sure the blame falls to congress. Anyway I was just pointing out the president's speech promised that congress was sending this it his way and he was going to sign it as soon as it got to his desk.
-
As far as whether or not we should have hate crime legislation at all... I'm still not sold. I completely buy Battuta's argument that a "hate crime" is more vile and evil (and why). What I'm not convinced about is the actual value of the law: does the extra penalty really make a difference? Is there any empirical evidence that hate crime legislation reduces the frequency of hate crimes? If there is, I'd love to see it. If there isn't, then hate crime laws are extra (unneeded) complication at best and at worst an opportunity for the law to be abused. But then again, there are enough ways to abuse the system already, so what's one law more or less?
You could however make the same argument about terrorism too though. Is there any evidence that stiffer sentences for that have any effect on preventing the crime?
Simple fact is that whether the crime gets prevented or not the public in general do tend to find it appealing that a terrorist spends more time in jail than a common murderer. It has a partial effect of reversing the climate of fear the terrorist has tried to create when the courts say "You will be treated more harshly for what you did." Similar reasoning can be used for hate crimes.
-
I find the logic of seperating hate crimes out of terrorism objectionable, personally, but...
-
I tend to agree but terrorism has come to mean bombings or hijackings rather than lynchings or racially motivated murders.
My entire point was to prove that they are basically the same thing anyway. As Battuta pointed out the only appreciable difference is that terrorism is practised against a nation while hate crimes are carried out against a minority of some sort.
Which is why those people who were claiming that hate crimes shouldn't get stiffer sentences because the crime is the same have basically talked themselves into a corner. You can argue that murder is murder but racially motivated murder is also terrorism. So the same argument applies that sentences should be in line with those for terrorism and not those for murder.
-
The problem as I see it is that terrorism is always, immediately, recognizeable by intent. When you blow up the Murray Building or crash airliners into stuff, there's not much question what you're trying to accomplish.
Hate crimes are not necessarily premediated, and thus somewhat murky.
-
I'll say it now to save some trouble. (even though it won't)
Beating up a guy who is black/white/gay/whatever = assault
Beating up a guy BECAUSE he is black/white/gay/whatever = assault + hate crime
How do you quantitatively tell the difference? Better question, how does it change the nature of the crime commited? The end result is the same, you have a guy who got assaulted. Why does the law care about the reason. It should only care about the act itself. This is a slippery slope toward Thought Police and even more control ceded over to the Federal Government because THEY'RE THE ONLY ONES WHO CAN PROTECT US! OH NOES!
-
Hey, Lib, you had a good thing going there, and then broke it with the all caps BS at the end.
-
How do you quantitatively tell the difference?
Trials? Prosecution, Judges, Juries, all that jazz?
Better question, how does it change the nature of the crime commited? The end result is the same, you have a guy who got assaulted.
You're right, having hate crime legislation doesn't change crimes, it's not supposed to.
Why does the law care about the reason. It should only care about the act itself. This is a slippery slope toward Thought Police and even more control ceded over to the Federal Government because THEY'RE THE ONLY ONES WHO CAN PROTECT US! OH NOES!
Could it be, and I'm just spitballing here, people are tired of bigoted assholes committing these crimes out of their own prejudices and have decided to make sure they get tougher sentences?
It's not really a difficult concept. People don't want these bigots around so they either send them to jail longer or scare them with the long prison time if they do it.
-
Then why not just up the sentence for the not-hate-related crime in the first place, if that would be such an excellent deterrence.
-
Could it be, and I'm just spitballing here, people are tired of bigoted assholes committing these crimes out of their own prejudices and have decided to make sure they get tougher sentences?
So, if I were, let's say, beat someone to a bloody pulp cause they looked at me in a way that I didn't care for and I just lost it for whatever reason and then walked away, how is that different if I yell a racial obscenity at them as I'm walking away?
Answer? It doesn't. The act is the same, I beat someone to within an inch of they're life. My calling him a big, fat, mother-loving, piece of **** insertracialobscenityhere, doesn't make that crime more heinous in a way that can or should be punished by law. Can you be disgusted over it? Sure. Is it wrong? Sure.
But the Law* can not and should not punish people for thinking something someone else finds offensive, even if it's the direct causal for the action being ruled on. It's why we have Law in the first place, so that the circumstances of the people involved have little or no bearing as evidence in a given case.
Let's use something less abrasive than assault, let's say it's a simple B&E on your residence and they get away with your plasma television and blu-ray player. On the way out, they spray paint an obscenity on the wall. That doesn't change the fact that they robbed you of some of your possessions. It merely changes your interpretation of the events. This is something the Law cannot address.
*I capitalilzed it so that it's representative of the law as a concept not legislation
-
Then why not just up the sentence for the not-hate-related crime in the first place, if that would be such an excellent deterrence.
Because then ALL crimes would get longer sentences. They don't want to up all assault cases, just these specific cases. If you upped assault cases from 5 years to 10 years (whatever they really are) everyone would get 10 years then, which completely ruins the point. The point is to say "Crimes based on bigotry and prejudice are worse, and we're going to punish them harsher".
Why is this hard to understand? People dislike people who commit these crimes out of prejudice more so they want them to spend more time in jail. You guys keep trying to ignore the why of these crimes. That it's not important. Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on how you look at it) people care very much why someone commits a crime and will determine how much that person should be punished based on it.
-
So, if I were, let's say, beat someone to a bloody pulp cause they looked at me in a way that I didn't care for and I just lost it for whatever reason and then walked away, how is that different if I yell a racial obscenity at them as I'm walking away?
The difference? In one you yelled a racial obscenity. I know that is the difference because you just said it was.
Now for the real question. If you beat a guy up because he looked at you funny and then called him a racial slur, is that a hate crime? No. You know how I know? You just told me why you did it, and it didn't include any racial, gender, age, whatever.
Being a racist doesn't make a hate crime. Committing a crime out of racism does.
Of course the next question is "But it wasn't racial, and since I used the slur, they're going to assume it and I'll get charged with a hate crime."
Why would you say that? If it isn't racially charged, why would you use a racial slur? What are they supposed to think? Take out the slur and add in any word or phrase, people are going to assume it has something to do with it.
Answer? It doesn't. The act is the same, I beat someone to within an inch of they're life. My calling him a big, fat, mother-loving, piece of **** insertracialobscenityhere, doesn't make that crime more heinous in a way that can or should be punished by law. Can you be disgusted over it? Sure. Is it wrong? Sure.
But the Law* can not and should not punish people for thinking something someone else finds offensive, even if it's the direct causal for the action being ruled on. It's why we have Law in the first place, so that the circumstances of the people involved have little or no bearing as evidence in a given case.
I love how you're mad people might be punished for thinking, only thinking! Not taking the thoughts to actions.
Taking the thoughts (bigoted and prejudiced thoughts) and charging them for us is just crazy! Oh that assault? Completely unrelated. I mean yea he's black and I beat him up because he's black, but let's not get all thought police on this.
You keep focusing on the thoughts, because that is where the argument is safer. "They're just thoughts. You can't punish people for thinking"
Except they aren't just thoughts, they're actions. Hateful thoughts become criminal acts. You have to take a hate against a group of people and turn it into an action, that's what makes it a hate crime and what gets the longer sentence.
The thought doesn't get the extra time, the act doesn't get the extra time. The thought becoming the act is what gets it.
Let's use something less abrasive than assault, let's say it's a simple B&E on your residence and they get away with your plasma television and blu-ray player. On the way out, they spray paint an obscenity on the wall. That doesn't change the fact that they robbed you of some of your possessions. It merely changes your interpretation of the events. This is something the Law cannot address.
And that wouldn't be a hate crime. Unless they committed the crime BECAUSE of whatever they painted. I mean if you're Jewish and they think Jews control all the... whatever I dunno. That's a hate crime.
That's where you're getting caught up, the spray painted obscenity doesn't make it a hate crime. That is merely proof used in a court to determine WHY the crime was committed.
If someone steals your stuff to score money for drugs or something, then it isn't a hate crime. It wasn't against a group.
-
You keep focusing on the thoughts, because that is where the argument is safer. "They're just thoughts. You can't punish people for thinking"
Except they aren't just thoughts, they're actions. Hateful thoughts become criminal acts. You have to take a hate against a group of people and turn it into an action, that's what makes it a hate crime and what gets the longer sentence.
The thought doesn't get the extra time, the act doesn't get the extra time. The thought becoming the act is what gets it.
Again, how can you tell the difference, are you telepathic? Is there some cadre of telepaths that are going to come forth from the aether and tell you?
I guess that's where we fall out, Hate Crime legislation exists tp make certain segments of society feel better(who will, in all likelyhood, never actually need to make use of it), but it doesn't really do a lot to help an already overloaded judicial system except to make it more difficult to prosecute any subsequent criminal cases. Which doesn't help anyone.
-
Again, how can you tell the difference, are you telepathic? Is there some cadre of telepaths that are going to come forth from the aether and tell you?
If you can't tell the motivation for a crime then they don't get charged. Or they do and just aren't convicted of it. Judges, prosecutors and juries determine this. I don't (unless I'm on a jury) and the victims certainly don't.
You seem to be under the impression that this will turn into any crime against a minority will be an automatic hate crime. We've had these laws for at least 15 years and it hasn't happened yet. Why is that? Because most people aren't like that. They don't react solely on race or religion or whatever.
I guess that's where we fall out, Hate Crime legislation exists tp make certain segments of society feel better(who will, in all likelyhood, never actually need to make use of it),
If by "feel better" you mean "certain groups don't have to worry as much about people beating the crap out of them becuase they're different", then yea, they are special.
The current part wasn't added in because there were gangs of gay men beating up straight guys, no one is saying it. But that situation is protected all the same.
but it doesn't really do a lot to help an already overloaded judicial system except to make it more difficult to prosecute any subsequent criminal cases. Which doesn't help anyone.
How does tacking on 5 years to a guy for beating up a gay guy because he's gay make it harder to prosecute assaults?
-
Oh...how about the part where they prove he did it because he was gay? That could add weeks to a case as the claim is investigated. Besides, what difference is 5 years gonna make? Your gonna lock a guy up for 5 years for getting into what amounts to a bar fight most of the time?
BTW, this will turn any crime involving a minority a hate crime. It can't help but.
-
Oh...how about the part where they prove he did it because he was gay? That could add weeks to a case as the claim is investigated. Besides, what difference is 5 years gonna make? Your gonna lock a guy up for 5 years for getting into what amounts to a bar fight most of the time?
Yeah, you lock guys up for bar fights for five years when somebody spent a week in the hospital. As a federal law, prosecuted in federal courts, it will only be applied to serious felonies, stuff were people got killed or badly injured.
Motivation is not difficult to prove or disprove. If they beat you up and took your wallet, that's robbery. If they beat you up walking out of a gay bar, that's a hate crime. We have "hate crime" as a special circumstance addition to other crimes here, for example. It's pretty much never a difficult case to prove when it's applied. You interview a few of the guy's friends and family, or just the victim, or you catch the idiot boasting about it or threatening people with it. You accuse a system run by people much more intelligent than you or I (they have to know case law, for chrissakes) of stupidity? They pick the battles they can win, they don't just toss around special circumstance tags for the lulz of it.
BTW, this will turn any crime involving a minority a hate crime. It can't help but.
Prove it. Give me an actual reason why this should ever be so.
-
Prove it. Give me an actual reason why this should ever be so.
Minority lawyer, minority plaintiff and a minority judge.
Also, I can guarantee that you will never see a black or a hispanic or a asian up on charges for commiting a hate crime against a white person. I can guarantee it.
See this is all about "intent" it doesn't take into account anything you can prove with forensics or science, it's all about punishing people because of a thought they had.
This is the exactly the same and the 11+ UN resolutions against the violence in Dharfur, never actually does anything, but it's admirable because of the "intent". They mean well by passing all these resolutions.
Well wishes or ill intent mean bupkis in the real world. At the end of the day the victim of a hate crime will have the same injury as the guy in the next courtroom that got beat up by someone his same color or sexual orientation. And thousands are still gonna die in Dharfur because the UN won't do what it's designed to do.
It doesn't affect anything other than someones political bull****.
-
Blah, blah, blah. If you're going to make an emo rant about how everyone thinks you're stupid, don't go ahead and act stupid.
If intent can be proved in the courtroom, then the crime qualifies as a hate crime. Otherwise it doesn't.
Your objection is spurious; it amounts to 'you shouldn't be convicted of a crime unless there's evidence for it!'
Also, I can guarantee that you will never see a black or a hispanic or a asian up on charges for commiting a hate crime against a white person. I can guarantee it.
Son, you just went down in ****ing flames. (http://www.portlandtribune.com/news/story.php?story_id=121355387311981300)
That took me five seconds to Google and now you look like an idiot. Why didn't you take five seconds to do some research?
Answer? It doesn't. The act is the same, I beat someone to within an inch of they're life. My calling him a big, fat, mother-loving, piece of **** insertracialobscenityhere, doesn't make that crime more heinous in a way that can or should be punished by law. Can you be disgusted over it? Sure. Is it wrong? Sure.
Oh, okay, so when we killed a few thousand people in a bombing in a time of war, that was no different than when Muslim fundamentalists blew up a building in peace time? Because the effects were the same: a few thousand people died. After all, you don't believe circumstances matter, huh?
I mean, by your logic, there's no difference.
By your logic, in fact, the invasion of Iraq was a greater act of terrorism than 9/11 because the body count was higher...which means the US government should receive a greater punishment than Al-Qaeda leadership.
Huh. I'm gonna bet you didn't want to say that.
But the Law* can not and should not punish people for thinking something someone else finds offensive, even if it's the direct causal for the action being ruled on. It's why we have Law in the first place, so that the circumstances of the people involved have little or no bearing as evidence in a given case.
And the law doesn't. The law punishes people for striking out at entire minority groups by 'making an example' of one individual.
I guess that's where we fall out, Hate Crime legislation exists tp make certain segments of society feel better(who will, in all likelyhood, never actually need to make use of it), but it doesn't really do a lot to help an already overloaded judicial system except to make it more difficult to prosecute any subsequent criminal cases. Which doesn't help anyone.
I don't.
I don't even.
Did you miss lynching? Jim Crow? Gay guys being targeted and shot to death all over Iraq, or, worse, being killed by anal glue torture? Minorities are targeted because they are minorities. This is not because they 'feel bad'. It's because they are hated and oppressed.
Every time a hate crime occurs it is meant to send a message. Just like terrorism, it is meant to inspire fear, to control and intimidate.
EDIT: I posted while angry because you were clearly not thinking the issue through with a level-head.
However, you did have one good point: hate crimes must be equally and fairly enforced. I believe everybody's reaction to terrorism indicates that white Americans, too, are harmed by hate crimes.
-
Minority lawyer, minority plaintiff and a minority judge.
I'm pretty sure you just said minorities will band together and ignore the law to attack white people. I mean are you implying that a minority judge cannot look at a case with a minority victim fairly?
Look at what you just wrote.... minorities will collude together to send all the white people to jail. Do you know who is in jail now? Do you really think the jails are all white people thrown in jail by these minority cabals or something?
Also, I can guarantee that you will never see a black or a hispanic or a asian up on charges for commiting a hate crime against a white person. I can guarantee it.
GB already got this. Whoopsie on you.
See this is all about "intent" it doesn't take into account anything you can prove with forensics or science, it's all about punishing people because of a thought they had.
I like how intent is in quotes, as if we're not sure if it exists.
If a prosecutor thinks a crime is a hate crime, they will produce evidence and witnesses to convince the judge or jury that is the case...... just like everything else in a court!
This is the exactly the same and the 11+ UN resolutions against the violence in Dharfur, never actually does anything, but it's admirable because of the "intent". They mean well by passing all these resolutions.
Ok you can't argue that this is super scary because all the minorities will use it to punish people they think are racists and then argue it "never actually does anything".
It's either the horrible law that will put all the white folk in jail or it's not. You can't argue from both sides.
Well wishes or ill intent mean bupkis in the real world. At the end of the day the victim of a hate crime will have the same injury as the guy in the next courtroom that got beat up by someone his same color or sexual orientation. And thousands are still gonna die in Dharfur because the UN won't do what it's designed to do.
Actually it means the guy who did it spends more time in jail and that's just fine with me. The people who intend to spread their hateful views through violence will not be on the street for longer.
Although props on bringing Dharfur into this. I have no idea what the UN and Dharfur have to do with guys beating up gay guys in America but I'm sure you'll come up with some rambling reason.
It doesn't affect anything other than someones political bull****.
Oh I would daresay it affects the people charged with it, which would be the entire point.
-
once i walked down the street and suddenly the minorities came and abducted me and accused me of hate crime
there was a muslim judge and an atheist judge and i think one of them was gay
the jury was also a minority, there were latinos and vegans and blacks and a nigerian and an irish and some of them were asians and one was an old-school nazi and i had no chance whatsoever and i was judged of a hate crime because i was A) thinking (they probed my mind with those dirty polish fingers of theirs) and B) white.
then they banded together and threw me in jail and now i write this letter from a jail. the jail is filled with 500 million white christians. we are completely helpless, overrun by minorities. oh wait, now the zarathrustran guard is coming to oppress m
-
You too, huh? Did they appoint a jar of mayonnaise as your attorney? That's what they gave me, then they just yelled at it for half an hour.
-
:eek2: What the heck is this topic on about, i always try to read back a few posts and those last two are just what teh fluck inducing.
-
Janos is being snarky.
-
and it's great! :D
-
If intent can be proved in the courtroom, then the crime qualifies as a hate crime. Otherwise it doesn't.
Intent is notabily difficult to actually PROVE. You can speculate on it, but you can't really prove it.
Sure, you can say he did it because of his race, but the other guy can just say he did it cause the first guy insulted him, stole from him or invent something else.
-
Hate crimes are typically pretty obvious. They usually say that they committed the crime because the person was gay, black, etc.
-
If intent can be proved in the courtroom, then the crime qualifies as a hate crime. Otherwise it doesn't.
Intent is notabily difficult to actually PROVE. You can speculate on it, but you can't really prove it.
Sure, you can say he did it because of his race, but the other guy can just say he did it cause the first guy insulted him, stole from him or invent something else.
Exactly. You need hard evidence to prove it. Either a confession, a prior statement, a lot of character witnesses - something tangible.
-
so what if I want to protest a neo-nazi clubhouse, and I as some less smart followers of my protest movement decide it would be a good idea to spray paint something like 'go back to germany' on the side of their building, or someone assaults one of these neo-nazis in the street because of the nazi's beleife that they are inherintly superior to everyone else and that just pisses the one guy off.
these are all clearly crimes and the individuals who did them should rightfully be punished, but wouldn't they qualify as hate crimes? seeing as the neo-nazis are being picked on because of their idology, and/or an attempt to intimidate them into leaving.
-
I don't think "actual or perceived racist ideology" is a protected group under the hate crimes law.
-
I couldn't be sure without going back to look, but I believe that for a group to qualify for protections, membership in the group cannot be a voluntary matter.
Homosexuals, minority racial groups, women - these are not things people choose to be or not be.
-
Actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, sex, disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity.
So religion is in there, but that's something one is usually indoctrinated with from an early age.
Of course "perceived" is important because you don't actually have to be gay to be murdered for being gay.
-
Yeah, many people here like to label people as gay even if they are not. I remember people saying things like "are you gay" and other stupid things to me more than once. Even simple things like wearing tall socks might be enough for people to make fun. But I rarely hear anyone being murdered for being gay, though I have heard it on the news before. Sadly, many people might not like Arabs here simply because of their race or religion and people here assuming they are all terrorists, which is stupid, I feel. Many in this country can't realize that only a minority of the total population of Arabs are terrorists. It's common sense to not think everyone in one race is the same, so it's common sense to know that most are not terrorists.
-
are there not decisively racist religious groups?
and even if it doesn't follow the letter of the law, I'm talking theory, the purpose of these laws is supposed to be that it would protect minorities from a hostile general population, but the law could be used by some minority to beat down legitimate protest against it (see Church of Scientology, Westboro Baptist Church, those assorted Mormon fundamentalist derived towns).
-
With respect to theory, I can be quite definite about this statement, having taken a bit of philosophy of human rights:
I couldn't be sure without going back to look, but I believe that for a group to qualify for protections, membership in the group cannot be a voluntary matter.
Homosexuals, minority racial groups, women - these are not things people choose to be or not be.
-
Assault/murder are not legitimate protesting strategies, so I don't know what you are talking about, bobbo.
-
I think he is worried about it setting a precedent that could be later used to ramp up protections against legal protesting for organizations like the above mentioned groups. Though I agree with Battuta, you can choose not to be an asshole, you can't choose your birth traits and that is what the law should be protecting. So long as thats clearly defined in the legislation then it shouldn't be some gateway to protecting Neo Nazis/Wetboro/NAMBLA what have you.
-
That's what the psycho right wing folks are on about with adding gays to the legislation. That it'll somehow silence religious protest against giving people their civil rights and whatnot. But it doesn't. It's not a precedent for it.
But if someone is murdered for being an atheist, a christian, a muslim, etc, that strikes me as being as much about terrorizing a group of people as much as someone being killed for dressing up as the "wrong" sex.
-
NAMBLA, perfict example, there is a lot of research that suggests that pedophilia may have a genetic root, if that is the case then you do not chose to be a pedophile and therefore should be subject to hate crime protection. so if someone is found to be a pedophile and as a result he get's beaten should that be prosecuted as a hate crime or a simple assault?
Assault/murder are not legitimate protesting strategies, so I don't know what you are talking about, bobbo.
I didn't suggest them as good courses of action, I asked if those crimes would also, in addition to being simply illegal, be considered hate crimes as well.
-
NAMBLA, perfict example, there is a lot of research that suggests that pedophilia may have a genetic root, if that is the case then you do not chose to be a pedophile and therefore should be subject to hate crime protection. so if someone is found to be a pedophile and as a result he get's beaten should that be prosecuted as a hate crime or a simple assault?
Good question. Cite on the heritability of pedophilia, though? (I don't doubt it, but it needs evidence.)
I think pedophilia is probably a disorder, not an identity, simply because its expression generally involves harming an individual who cannot give consent.
-
If pedophilia is a disease, then doesn't it count as a disability?
-
Probably so. I'm hardly an expert on the legal or philosophical implications of pedophilia, or of any other edge case.
Nonetheless, the need (if not the effectiveness) of special protections for historically oppressed minority groups has been well-argued in this thread. I have no idea whether pedophiles should be included in that class, but I have a pretty good idea of which groups should be.
-
If pedophilia is a disease, then doesn't it count as a disability?
bigot: "I hates me some cripples!"
what shall be done when he goes on a rampage assaulting handicapped people.
I don't see what your point is. unless you are saying pedophiles should be covered?
-
Good question. Cite on the heritability of pedophilia, though? (I don't doubt it, but it needs evidence.)
I think pedophilia is probably a disorder, not an identity, simply because its expression generally involves harming an individual who cannot give consent.
Blanchard, R. (2008). Cerebral white matter deficiencies in pedophilic men. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 42, 167–183
Structural brain abnormalities in the frontostriatal system and cerebellum in pedophilia. 'Journal of Psychiatric Research, 41, 753–762
Bogerts, B. (2007). Brain pathology in pedophilic offenders: Evidence of volume reduction in the right amygdala and related diencephalic structures. Archives of General Psychiatry, 64, 737–746.
yay wikipedia, I'll try to do better when I some more time.
-
Those are correlational studies. We'd need an actual analysis of heritability.
These studies do not necessarily even establish certain areas of the brain as being linked to pedophilia specifically; they could cause deficits in general control or underlie other social problems.
-
Semantics time! Pedophile isn't the same as child molester. A child molester has actually taken action and committed a crime, but a pedophile not necessarily.
So... say you've got some guy that's attracted to kids, but would never actually mess with one. Someone gets wind of his 'preference' and kills him. Is that okay? Should that count as a hate crime?
-
It's a sticky question. Pedophilia isn't a sexual orientation. If anything, it's a disease. It could be a hate crime if it counts as a disability, but that's about it.
Pedophiles should be in treatment, though, if it's a disability.
-
There is no reason not to cover them.
Are you objecting to having your right to kill pedophiles curtailed? 'cuz you are aware, you don't have that right anyways.
-
IF pedophilia is not a disability, then they are not covered. IF it is, then they are.
I'm not objecting or supporting anything. They are if-then statements. That's all.
I just also added that if pedophilia is considered a disease/condition/whatever, then pedophiles should definitely be in a LOT of constant treatment, because they are more likely than the rest of us to commit the worst kinds of harm to a child.
-
what if it is found to be structurally similar to other sexual preferences? that is if the cause for it is the same as the cause for anything else just oriented in a different way. are you going to deny them protection under hate crime legislation because you find their preference untasteful?
what happens when someone who has had a child molested kills a pedophile who has done nothing? would that be a plain old murder (<-my preference), a hate crime, or something akin to man slaughter because the person in question was so enraged they couldn't think straight?
-
Paedos deserve it though.
-
It's a sticky question. Pedophilia isn't a sexual orientation. If anything, it's a disease. It could be a hate crime if it counts as a disability, but that's about it.
Pedophiles should be in treatment, though, if it's a disability.
So wait...I'm curious now.
Why is pedophilia a desease, but homosexuality isn't? They both come down to "being sexually attracted to someone you really shouldn't be". They appear the same by their base underlying workings too.
-
So wait...I'm curious now.
Why is pedophilia a desease, but homosexuality isn't? They both come down to "being sexually attracted to someone you really shouldn't be". They appear the same by their base underlying workings too.
Probably because being gay is pretty much harmless unless it's other people doing the harm.
-
It's a sticky question. Pedophilia isn't a sexual orientation. If anything, it's a disease. It could be a hate crime if it counts as a disability, but that's about it.
Pedophiles should be in treatment, though, if it's a disability.
So wait...I'm curious now.
Why is pedophilia a desease, but homosexuality isn't? They both come down to "being sexually attracted to someone you really shouldn't be". They appear the same by their base underlying workings too.
1. Homosexuality involves being attracted to a consenting adult.
2. Homosexuality has nothing to do with 'being sexually attracted to someone you shouldn't be'. Who says they shouldn't be? Homosexuality occurs in thousands of species.
3. There is no evidence here that they are remotely the same on the neural level. There's not even any evidence that pedophilia is heritable (though I'm sure it is to a degree) or that it has specific neural mechanisms.
You should try to gather reliable evidence, think about it clearly, and weigh its scientific meaning before leaping to conclusions.
-
It's a sticky question. Pedophilia isn't a sexual orientation. If anything, it's a disease. It could be a hate crime if it counts as a disability, but that's about it.
Pedophiles should be in treatment, though, if it's a disability.
So wait...I'm curious now.
Why is pedophilia a desease, but homosexuality isn't? They both come down to "being sexually attracted to someone you really shouldn't be". They appear the same by their base underlying workings too.
No
you see, there is a thing called "consent"
you can probably see where this is headed
-
and none of this is even the point, the question was if it was not something you chose to become, then shouldn't that mean they were a minority that fit the definition of that being used to be protected by hate crime legislation.
-
If pedophilia's a disease/condition, then pedophiles who don't act on their urges deserve treatment and protection. Maybe that could count as a disability and someone who murders a pedophile for being a pedophile in cold blood could be charged with a hate crime.
But no jury would convict someone of a hate crime for killing a pedophile, so it's really a moot point.
-
Whether it is a disease or not, you still can't beat them up. All we're talking about it how long a prison term you get.
-
I know that. Who are you talking to?
-
and none of this is even the point, the question was if it was not something you chose to become, then shouldn't that mean they were a minority that fit the definition of that being used to be protected by hate crime legislation.
IF pedophilia is not a disability, then they are not covered. IF it is, then they are.
This is due to the use of the word 'disability' in the hate crimes legislation.
They would probably not qualify as a 'minority', however, any more than those with cancer count as a minority.
-
Pedophiles aren't a minority in the sense that homosexuals are. If they're covered by hate crimes legislation, it's under the disability part.
Are we saying the same thing?
-
Exactly the same thing.
Pedophiles are not a 'minority', they are people who suffer from a disability.
-
Bob appears to be saying his right to assault pedophiles is being infringed, however.
-
Which is why I said what I said.
-
It's a sticky question. Pedophilia isn't a sexual orientation. If anything, it's a disease. It could be a hate crime if it counts as a disability, but that's about it.
Pedophiles should be in treatment, though, if it's a disability.
So wait...I'm curious now.
Why is pedophilia a desease, but homosexuality isn't? They both come down to "being sexually attracted to someone you really shouldn't be". They appear the same by their base underlying workings too.
1. Homosexuality involves being attracted to a consenting adult.
- what does that have to do with the definition of desease? Nothing, last time I checked.
2. Homosexuality has nothing to do with 'being sexually attracted to someone you shouldn't be'. Who says they shouldn't be? Homosexuality occurs in thousands of species.
- Fine then. Who are you to say peopel shouldn't be attracted to underaged/minors? By what right do you decide?
And you might have notice that animals tend to procreate as soon as they are physicly able.
3. There is no evidence here that they are remotely the same on the neural level. There's not even any evidence that pedophilia is heritable (though I'm sure it is to a degree) or that it has specific neural mechanisms.
You should try to gather reliable evidence, think about it clearly, and weigh its scientific meaning before leaping to conclusions.
They look pretty similar to me. And about the evidence thing - you might want to take your own advice then.
-
And you might have notice that animals tend to procreate as soon as they are physicly able.
So do High School Freshmen, hur hur. :P
-
*stuff*
So, what's your overall point, besides general homophobia?
- Fine then. Who are you to say peopel shouldn't be attracted to underaged/minors? By what right do you decide?
Pedophilia is considered problematic because it is generally expressed as rape. Children cannot legally or cognitively provide consent.
And you might have notice that animals tend to procreate as soon as they are physicly able.
And so did human beings, up until very recently. In many cultures they still do.
-
His phrasing and conclusions aside, TrashMan does raise an interesting hypothetical. Obviously, from an end standpoint, homosexuality and pedophilia are completely different ballgames, as one is able to be expressed entirely between consenting adults, while the other inherently involves interaction with a party that cannot legally (and even mentally) express such consent. But if (and this is a decidedly big if) further research were to show that phenomena like homosexuality and pedophilia have similar factors at work, whether they be underlying genetics, brain structure, or environmental triggers, I do have to wonder what sort of implications that could have on how pedophilia is viewed and dealt with. Pedophilia in general seems to be something that it's extremely difficult to have an academic-minded discussion about, as the consequences of actual child molestation immediately generate a "Think of the children!" cry that tends to drown out anything else.
-
It's a false question. Heterosexuality is heritable and rooted in neural structures; why don't we worry about whether it's a disorder? Well, because it's normative.
In recent years, we've started to say that 'well, homosexuality is okay, because it's genetic and shows up in the brain', but that's an excuse for us to realize that sexual practices between consenting adults are not wrong. Homosexuality is no more 'genetically determined' than heterosexuality, nor is it any more or less natural: which is to say that both are genetically determined and both are natural and widespread.
The question is partly rooted in the false belief that there is one 'natural' state for sex, that being heterosex, and that other sexual orientations are deviations from this. In practice, homosexuality is incredibly common in the animal world (far more so than in humans), and while sex with the pre-reproductive is nowhere near as common, it occurs too.
We simply choose to define certain behaviors as unhealthy. In the past, homosex was one of these behaviors.
The only way that pedophilia would differ from homosex or heterosex, were it determined to be genetically or neurally determined, would be that it involves the attraction to individuals who cannot give consent.
tl;dr version: Morality is arbitrary. We call homosexuality and heterosexuality 'okay' because they occur between consenting adults. Pedophilia could be every bit as determined as other sexual orientations, but it will remain morally wrong because children cannot give consent.
And that's a social construct (and one I happen to agree with). It wasn't that way in Ancient Greece, for instance; nor was it that way in the recent past, when a twenty-five-year-old man marrying a fourteen-year-old would've been fine so long as she was fertile.
-
I do understand your point, and I think I was kind of writing along the wrong lines in my post, but I was thinking more of the societal side of things than what constitutes normative behavior. I'm sure there are plenty of people in this world who fully support gay marriage yet would be perfectly willing to lynch someone who makes the statement, "I've thought about children in a sexual light." As you say, since pedophilia isn't presumably fundamentally different from a structural standpoint than heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality, the only difference there is the moral social construct against it due to the implicit inability of children to give consent, which is something I also completely agree with. However, by the same token, there seems to be a dissociation present in the public as a whole between pedophilia and other sexual preferences by virtue of that fundamental difference, to the point where any reasonable discussion about the topic as a whole tends to be overwhelming drowned out by knee-jerk cries of protectionism.
I've seen this come into play most often during discussions about "virtual CP" in the anime/manga community and the individuals who've come into legal trouble by possessing such material. The majority forumite opinion, and one I generally tend to agree with, is that, since such material doesn't involve the abuse of actual children in any way, then it should fall under protected expression, as attempts to prosecute it veer disturbingly into the "thought crime" realm. However, the argument I've seen expressed far more commonly by public figures, including such organizations as UNESCO, is that such material is "damaging" to children everywhere by its very nature. The general counter-argument tends to run that, without scientific evidence either way, such material could prove beneficial to real children, as it provides a harmless outlet for pedophilic tendencies that might otherwise be turned on them...but that very lack of evidence represents the problem. There aren't many, or even any, researchers who'd delve into such a study, no matter how beneficial its conclusions might be, simply because of the hue and cry that would be raised against them. Along the same exact lines, you're not going to see politicians debating whether housing restrictions against registered sex offenders represent cruel and unusual punishment, because they'd be torn apart by their constituents for "supporting kid-touchers." The fact that this sort of discussion can never take place in a reasonable setting is at odds with the assertion of pedophilia as a natural (though immoral) form of sexual expression, which is I think where the real problem lies.
(Note that I'm not in any way trying to draw pedophilia into the whole discussion about whether or not hate-crime legislation is beneficial; since the topic kind of turned this way, I thought I'd throw down a few thoughts myself.)
-
Bear in mind that none of the studies TrashMan cited actually provide direct neural evidence for some kind of damage causing pedophilia. He misinterpreted correlational studies as causational - which is a hazard of all neural research, and understandable, especially as he's probably not an expert in the field.
We still can't definitively say that pedophilia is structurally the same as 'normal' sexual orientations. Even if it has a genetic or neural basis, it may have more in common with psychopathy or other disorders than the relatively minor changes involved in heterosex vs. homosex preference. (Those preferences are probably cued by hormone differences; we don't have any firm evidence for a 'gay gene' or stuff like that right now, never mind a 'gay brain'.)
On an aside.
There's a certain allele (or set of alleles, I forget which) that are present in some certain percentage of men. And those men show dramatically higher rates of antisocial behavior, infidelity, and crime. If you look at most single mothers, it's a good bet that the absent fathers have this gene. It's basically a 'bad guy gene'. Should we start classifying this gene as a disability? Would people marry men with this gene? Should we give them special treatment?
It's a very thorny ethical problem.
-
With pedophilia, it is the non-consentual factor that is the important one, but I would go so far as to say that, yes, attacking someone because you believe them to be a pedophile, or, even for being convicted as one is a crime born of hate by its very definition.
I can fully understand the urge and desire to do so, but the moment we start turning round and saying 'an anti hate-crime law applies to everyone but X', we are completely negating the point of the law.
It does, however, raise an interesting point of law if you consider a situation where a person shoots another person for molesting their children.
-
Ahh...but Battuta, I was not speaking of looking at them from the moral standpoint - forget morals. They are very much debatable (at least many would claim so).
I was talking about pure biology, the underlaying framework. It certanly appears the same.
I hate to be the devils advocate and raise...uncomfortable questions. But someone has to.
I do say that when it comes to psychology and neural sciences, I am extreemly skeeptical about everything I read. Tehy are rather young and ...mellable scientific branches. I personally don't trust them much.
Also: homosexuality. not normal. No matter how you twist the meaning of the world normal. Does that make it bad by default? No. So what if it isn't normal? But the point is, calling it normal is quite simply...wrong.
-
Ah but in a culture were it wasn't pre disposed to look at it as 'wrong' it would be normal. Like say, Spartans.
-
Having Ginger hair isn't normal, having blue eyes isn't normal, being left handed isn't normal.
That's the thing, really, whilst homosexuality may be less common than heterosexuality, can you imagine people calling out for left-handedness to be 'cured', or that people with Ginger hair should accept their abnormality?
-
Some things are part of the design, others are not.
A red, blue or yellow car - still all parts of the original blueprint.
A different engine, extra radio - still all part of the blueprint.
Gas and break pedal mixed up - not part of the blueprint.
It's as simple as that.
-
Ahh...but Battuta, I was not speaking of looking at them from the moral standpoint - forget morals. They are very much debatable (at least many would claim so).
I was talking about pure biology, the underlaying framework. It certanly appears the same.
I hate to be the devils advocate and raise...uncomfortable questions. But someone has to.
There's nothing remotely similar about the studies you posted about the neural basis of psychopathy and the roots of homosexuality.
There aren't yet any uncomfortable questions here, because homosexuality is simply very hard to tell from heterosexuality on the neural level. It appears to be rooted in hormone levels. MP-Ryan can tell you more if you're curious.
The studies you posted didn't actually demonstrate any neural basis to pedophilia, either. They were simple correlative designs.
Also: homosexuality. not normal. No matter how you twist the meaning of the world normal. Does that make it bad by default? No. So what if it isn't normal? But the point is, calling it normal is quite simply...wrong.
Homosexuality is 'normal' in that it occurs naturally in hundreds of known species and was widely practiced in many human cultures. It is not normative in our culture, in the same way that boning thirteen-year-olds is not normative, but both are, biologically, quite normal - and historically rather normal too!
Some things are part of the design, others are not.
Quite right! And homosexuality is part of the design.
-
No, the variations in pigment are mostly born through the blending of genes, they are a whole new design bought about by that blending, like fingerprints, exact eye-shades are pretty much person-unique.
Left Handedness is definitely a question of mental wiring, I'm left handed myself, evidence of this is given by diseases such as Alien Hand Syndrome, that's a 'fault' if you compare it to most people, and yet, after the initial response of 'oh, you're left handed', nobody really cares, it should be the same with homosexuality, but the problem isn't with the person themselves, it's with the people around them.
-
^this
it's not normal in the same sense that left handedness isn't normal,
-
That's an A+ example.
(Ironically, left-handed people were discriminated against in exactly the same way as homosexuals in the Middle Ages. (http://radioinsidescoop.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/left-handed.jpg) Today, they have higher average incomes.)
-
^^^^
Let's have fun with words! Dexter is the Greek word for "right" as in the direction, sinister is the word for "left." Being left handed was bad back then, hence the word "sinister." Also note "ambidextrous" as opposed to "ambisinistrous."
-
ambisinidextrous!
-
It's as simple as that.
No. The workings of the human brain are far more complex than the design of any automobile.
-
Quite right! And homosexuality is part of the design.
Sez you. And I disagree. Nothing more to be said really.
-
Quite right! And homosexuality is part of the design.
Sez you. And I disagree. Nothing more to be said really.
Well we have scientific evidence and evidence of it occurring naturally in many species of animal on one hand
And we have Trashman's 1800 year old book on the other hand.
What a tough choice. *rolls eyes*
-
Quite right! And homosexuality is part of the design.
Sez you. And I disagree. Nothing more to be said really.
It occurs in thousands of species, including entire species which are completely bisexual. Some of them are our closest relatives.
You have been disproven.
-
Quite right! And homosexuality is part of the design.
Sez you. And I disagree. Nothing more to be said really.
I love the Ostrich approach to debate. Comfortable with your head in the sand? I always figured it would chafe the ear canals. I digress...
Latest evidence shows that sexual orientation and sexual identity are two entirely different phenomena Sexual identity we know is at least partially controlled by hormone dosage in the womb. Despite the fetal DNA, exposure to a high androgen:estrogen ratio results in a brain that is physiologically male; a high estrogen:androgen ratio results in a brain that is physiologically female - and all this is independent of your chromosome configuration (though is probably still genetically controlled and a result of translocation/recombination in particular cell lineages or endocrine wiring gone awry). Your primary and secondary sexual characteristics (penis, vagina, breasts, hair, Adam's apple, hip shape, ovaries, testicles, etc) are controlled by a very specific set of genes on the X and Y chromosomes that interact to produce a male - the default is female, and occurs when either a Y chromosome isn't present or the gene that sets the cascade in motion from the Y chromosome is non-functional (which results in Turner Syndrome, usually).
Sexual orientation is an entirely different kettle of fish. While there has been a great deal of speculation that it is genetically controlled, it looks very much like its an interaction at multiple loci that produces some of the effects... but we're never going to find the "gay gene." Ain't. Happening. Sexual attraction is a complex beast that appears to be a combination of at least partially heritable genetic traits, neurochemistry, neurophysiology, and psychology. It's fairly commonly accepted in abnormal psychology that no two people have exactly the same set of sexual attraction cues - some people have cues that go awry, which generates fetishes (largely learned in early childhood development, near as we can tell). However, that doesn't exactly apply to gender, considering there are basically five types of gendered attraction:
1. Attraction to women.
2. Attraction to men.
3. Attraction to women and men.
4. No sexual attraction (asexual).
5. Attraction to the majority of individuals identifying as one gender but some individuals identifying as another.
And none of those correlate strongly to sexual identity (meaning whether one thinks they are male/female/other) or primary sexual characteristics (whether one has penis and testicles or vagina and ovaries), or even genetic sexual identity (whether one has a an X:Y ratio of 1:1, 2:0, or something else).
Given that nowhere in all this does anyone have any meaningful choice in the matter, homosexuality and transgendered identity can be considered nothing BUT natural.
-
That's an A+ example.
(Ironically, left-handed people were discriminated against in exactly the same way as homosexuals in the Middle Ages. (http://radioinsidescoop.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/left-handed.jpg) Today, they have higher average incomes.)
I can tell you from personal experience that, at least in the UK, there were teachers who forced left-handed pupils to write with the other hand because left-handedness was 'a choice' and if we tried hard enough with the 'correct' hand, we'd be just as good, less than 30 years ago :)
Funny thing is, in truth, writing is about the only thing I'm left handed for, I throw, use scissors and use a Mouse all with my right hand.
-
I used my left hand more as a child but my mum heavily encouraged right hand usage. I prolly wasn't a lefty, but I might have ended up ambi. :P
-
I'm supposed to be dominiant on my left eye but I'm dominant on my right hand. :P
-
It occurs in thousands of species
So does cancer.
You have been disproven.
Heh..hardly.
And we have Trashman's 1800 year old book on the other hand.
What book? The Bible? What makes you think that has anything to do with the Bible. It doesn't.
-
It occurs in thousands of species
So does cancer.
this
this right here
this is what we mean when we talk of revolting discussion tactics
-
So does death. :nervous:
-
*ostrich*
Go read MP-Ryan's post, then sit in a corner.
-
I'm supposed to be dominiant on my left eye but I'm dominant on my right hand. :P
That's not uncommon. Different areas of the brain control hand and eye preference. If you were left-handed and right-footed that would be a little more unusual, but certainly not unheard of.
-
It occurs in thousands of species
So does cancer.
And cancer is an extremely common, and normal, development within mammals. Everyone develops cancer in the course of their lifetime, though not everyone develops tumours or life-threatening conditions as a result. Cancer may be undesirable from a standpoint of lifespan, but it certainly isn't a condition out of the ordinary. Our bodies are actually designed with cellular cascades to detect and kill cancers because they are so common, mechanisms which - for the most part - are extremely effective.
-
And we have Trashman's 1800 year old book on the other hand.
What book? The Bible? What makes you think that has anything to do with the Bible. It doesn't.
Because when people hate gays as much as you seem to, it's either because they are secretly gay and are afraid of it, or because they've been brought up religious. There's no rational reason for your beliefs.
-
I'll see where this goes.
-
I don't mean that he directly hates gay people on an individual level, just that he hates gay people on a larger scale such that he wants to deny them the same rights that he has.
-
No no, you misinterpret. I'm not going to interject and lock or anything. I'm interested by the points you both raise :yes:
-
tura's gay
-
tura's gay
you're gay
-
You're both gay.