Double Exposure, Inc.
  • June 24, 2018, 06:45:05 PM
  • Welcome, Guest
Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4   Go Down

Author Topic: Love Finally Wins Over Hate  (Read 9871 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Fox McCloud

  • Dobakiin
  • Senior Staff
  • Mega Meeper
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1254
  • Double Exposure Secret Police
Re: Love Finally Wins Over Hate
« Reply #15 on: November 07, 2009, 01:27:09 AM »

Quote
Yes, of course, those who POINT OUT racism are, in fact, the real racists. This tired-ass response needs to be retired in favor of something that makes, I don't know, some kind of sense?

Not what I said at all.  I don't think that people who are pointing out racism are racists.  I am just saying what I believe their actions cause.

Quote
This hypothetical? Does not play out IRL. We have hate crimes laws on the books, and their use by prosecutors has not led to a sharp increase in bias crimes.

Sharp?  Maybe not.  I am talking about cause and effect with the more general population.  Not just the very few that go out and act on their feelings but more 'in general'.

Quote
I see... IGNORING bias is the most effective method for eliminating it. Of course, why hadn't anyone ever thought of that before?

Not really ignoring bias.  What I mean is more ignoring race.  Isn't ignoring race the goal of the civil rights movement?  And the key to a more tolerant society?

Quote
Your understanding is, simply put, wrong, on several counts. You know what the difference is between voluntary manslaughter and capital murder?

I do in fact. I was more referring to the punishment of specific motivation.

Quote
And fighting against laws sending this message indicates a support of those biases.

Damn good point.  Not exactly sure where I stand on that.  I am obviously standing agensed this law.  But not supporting the biases.  *ponder* It is a very your ether with us or agensed us statement but I definitely agree with it.  And disagree with it.  I don't think anyone here is arguing for biased crimes but more how to solve the problem as a whole.  Or disagreeing with it for reasons that are neither pro or anti biased.

Quote
Again, this is not the case.

Based on what goes on now...I would have to disagree.


   I do find it a bit funny that people seem to be at least somewhat aggressively arguing over this law in a thread labeled Love Finally Wins Over Hate.  Of course people will always disagree on stuff.  And I enjoy sharing opinions with you all but.  Often times its too heated and people have too much personally invested in their arguments it seems.  That's just how I perceive it.


Logged
"What the lion cannot manage to do, the Fox can."  -German Proverb

"The state that separates its scholars from its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards, and its fighting by fools."
Thucydides

"House Ares!  HOAH!"

Mack Ravensline

  • Avatars
  • Super Meeper
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 791
Re: Love Finally Wins Over Hate
« Reply #16 on: November 07, 2009, 08:21:39 AM »

2) passing the laws sends a message of societal intolerance for bias-motivated crimes, and in to a lesser degree the biases themselves
This is true, but at what cost. It makes it so certain groups are considered more in need of protection under the law. It is very difficult to prove what someone was thinking when they committ a crime, unless they tell you. You get on a very slippery slope when you try to assume why something was done. What you can judge is whether someone is likely to commit a crime again and if they show genuine remorse for their crime. When you start drawing up laws to protect certain groups and not all, you elevate one group above another. This is far worse than having a group of small minded bigots who act on their stupidity.
And fighting against laws sending this message indicates a support of those biases.
This is simply not true. I detest the kind of thinking that would cause someone to commit this type of crime, yet I also do not want to see certain groups being elevated in our legal system to be more protected or anything else. Enforce the laws we have to the fullest extent. If a crime is a crime, it is equally a crime for all, not moreso because of what victim group the person belongs to. I want to see they pathetic crimes stopped as well as you do, but I do not want freedom to be eroded as a result.
Logged

Mack Ravensline

  • Avatars
  • Super Meeper
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 791
Re: Love Finally Wins Over Hate
« Reply #17 on: November 07, 2009, 09:24:10 AM »

There are a number of reasons to establish a separate offense for bias motivated crimes. I think most of the anti-'hate crimes' backlash comes from scared people who think it'll be stepping stone to hate speech laws, though the likelihood of that happening is so infinitessimal (seriously, we can't even limit campaign contributions because of the 1st amendment, and you're worried there's gonna be SCOTUS-approved hate speech laws?) it boggles that someone can be worried about it. Plus the hardcore folks who feel their privileges impinged by any perceived societal support for the traditionally underprivileged, driving things.
#1 This is not the reason, the real reason is just as I said. It elevates the amount of protection for specific members of a victim group over that of others who are not of these groups. #2 This is a form of regulating hate speech. If someone commits a crime and happened to have made statements in the past that were not 100% politically correct, they could be used against him in court to prove that what he/she did was a hate crime. The speech itself is not a crime, but the speech could be used to condemn someone further if they commit a crime.
Two quick reason for, that your response ignores, are that: 1) bias crimes against members of less privileged groups tend to have a negative impact on the group/community as a whole, in addition to the direct victim (THIS is not sufficiently addressed by the existing criminal laws, and IS a separate harm done requiring separate punishment), 2) passing the laws sends a message of societal intolerance for bias-motivated crimes, and in to a lesser degree the biases themselves
 
The job of the court is not to change people's thinking. It is to punish and offer rehabilitation. If someone assaults another, regardless of why, they should be punished to the full extent of the law. If you wish to cite mitigating circumstances, fine, do it at sentancing since the judge usually has a great deal of latitude on sentancing.
The law under discussion doesn't establish any sort of preferential treatment, as it happens.
Of course it does. If you are punishing a crime more severly because it is to one group, it is preferential treatment.
And establishing civil unions as a separate but equivalent entity DOES NOT EFFECTIVELY GRANT THE SAME RIGHTS. DOES NOT. As determined in many cases where such schemes were established. So, sure, many of those voters would have happily granted gays the privilege to have a few more of the benefits they are currently denied, but not ALL. Because, you know, actual equality is intolerable!
If all the privileges under the law are exactly the same, it is the same except for the term used. The term is one that holds religious significance, not necessarily legal significance. Therefore I would happily support a Civil Union with all the benefits of marriage except the term used. I believe most others would support it too, unless they were specifically homophobic. On that, I would then have to agree that it was acting in hate.
Logged

SigmaCaine

  • Guest
Re: Love Finally Wins Over Hate
« Reply #18 on: November 07, 2009, 10:23:57 AM »

Isn't ignoring race the goal of the civil rights movement?

To quote Harrison Bergeron: "You haven't made everyone equal, you've made them the same!"

So, no. Ignoring race is not the goal of the civil rights movement. This is a subtle but key point that a lot of people miss. I don't want to be treated like I'm a straight white man. I'm a bisexual Latina woman and that is a HUGE part of my identity as a person. Being black, Asian, female, gay, whatever, is our culture and heritage and identity, and we don't want that to be erased. What I want - what most minorities want - is not to be treated the same, but not to be deemed inferior or targeted for ridicule or hate crimes solely based on these characteristics. To be treated *equally*.

In our society the norm is "straight white man." A lot of well-meaning but misguided folks tend to believe that making sure everyone is viewed as SWM is the way to go, but all that does is say "there's something wrong with being black, so we're going to be nice and forget that you are." Would you want everyone around you to dismiss your manhood as "the other", and tell you, "it's okay, we're going to pretend you're a woman"? There are other people who have written this far more eloquently than I ever could (I'm sure what I've said will be picked apart here) and I suggest everyone do a little reading.

As for the law itself, I will say this: I am sincerely sorry that hate crimes are at such a level that a law like this need even be considered.
Logged

LucasJamison

  • ?
  • Avatars
  • Super Meeper
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 802
Re: Love Finally Wins Over Hate
« Reply #19 on: November 07, 2009, 05:06:52 PM »

I am just saying what I believe their actions cause.

Your belief counts for shit - the reality of the situation is different than you suppose. Plus, you know, if pointing out racism leads to a backlash from racists, then it is the racists who are the cause of the problem, not those that point it out.

Sharp?  Maybe not.  I am talking about cause and effect with the more general population.  Not just the very few that go out and act on their feelings but more 'in general'.

Yeah, no. People don't just, you know, go about their merry business being all unbiased until someone points out that OMG bias still exists and not everyone is the same. I will grant you that when less privileged groups speak out or fight back against institutional bias, there is often a backlash, and this backlash is even supported by those who might otherwise be more willing to be supportive but are in such cases threatened or offended in some way by those speaking up for their rights. But that is not hte fault of those who speak up, it's the fault of the quiet, closet biases of those who ignore the problem because it isn't theirs.

Not really ignoring bias.  What I mean is more ignoring race.  Isn't ignoring race the goal of the civil rights movement?  And the key to a more tolerant society?

Um... no. Not at all.

I do in fact. I was more referring to the punishment of specific motivation.

Which is problematic because? The fiction of absolute individual liberty leads these problems. You are not, will never be, and SHOULD NOT be, free to do, think, or say as you will without consequence or consideration.

Quote
Damn good point.  Not exactly sure where I stand on that.  I am obviously standing agensed this law.  But not supporting the biases.

There is absolutely no harm to come from further criminalizing bias-motivated offenses. The only group likely to be negatively impacted by such measures are violent, hateful folks, who, really, OUGHT to be negatively impacted by it.

So why the incredibly anti-hate-crime movement? Do they support violent racism, sexism, homophobia? They say they don't. But what other motivation makes sense?

Quote
Based on what goes on now...I would have to disagree.

Oh? You have some data to support this, or at least some vague anecdote?

Quote
I do find it a bit funny that people seem to be at least somewhat aggressively arguing over this law in a thread labeled Love Finally Wins Over Hate.

The phrasing seems motivated by the site linked to at the start of the thread. I would've said "a small step forward for equality", because it is a tiny, tiny step, and a damn sad statement that such tiny scraps are cause for such joyous celebration.

Quote
Of course people will always disagree on stuff.  And I enjoy sharing opinions with you all but.  Often times its too heated and people have too much personally invested in their arguments it seems.  That's just how I perceive it.

When the issue that is being disagreed on is whether or not a certain group of people deserves to be treated as full human beings with all the attendant rights and privileges... then yes, there's going to be heated discussion. Those whose rights are secure enough that no one can serious discuss whether or not they should have them, have the incredible privilege to move through life ignoring these situations, and not having to get emotionally involved.
Logged
eveilebotenoynaecrofnacenoonsevlesmehtrofdniftsumlla
hguorhtraelcsemocebllagnidnapxerevesillahtiwenoemoceb
otsiezilaerotesuactsujtuohtiwforewollofrehtonamrahton
tlahsuohtsdrawotseyeriehtnrutohwlladiallahsuoynahtrehgih
ecrofonezingocerllahsuoyotnrutersgnihtllamorfemocsgniht
llanaemedotsinialpxeot

LucasJamison

  • ?
  • Avatars
  • Super Meeper
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 802
Re: Love Finally Wins Over Hate
« Reply #20 on: November 07, 2009, 05:28:50 PM »

It is very difficult to prove what someone was thinking when they committ a crime, unless they tell you.

And, perhaps, this law will primarily come into play where it IS that cut and dry. Be a little hard to say until the first few indictmetns under this statute begin to play out. Which could be a while, because more than likely the feds will want to leave such prosecutions to the states, and the states will use their own laws. Very early to presuppose federal prosecutors will be using these laws to chill constitutionally protected associations or speech.

You get on a very slippery slope when you try to assume why something was done.

There are MANY situations under law, civil or criminal, where an individual's intent must be proven, and CAN be proven to the satisfaction of the laws requirements WITHOUT admission of guilt by the defendent. What is so different about THIS case?

When you start drawing up laws to protect certain groups and not all, you elevate one group above another. This is far worse than having a group of small minded bigots who act on their stupidity.

The law just doesn't do that, though.

#1 This is not the reason, the real reason is just as I said. It elevates the amount of protection for specific members of a victim group over that of others who are not of these groups.

Did you read the law, by any chance? Because I can't find where it does this. It adds punishment for bias motivated crimes on basis certain classes - religious, ethnic, national origin, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, race. It protects Christians as much as Muslims, Whites as much as Blacks, and straights as much as gays. Seriously - before you open your mouth, at least try to do BASIC factchecking.

#2 This is a form of regulating hate speech. If someone commits a crime and happened to have made statements in the past that were not 100% politically correct, they could be used against him in court to prove that what he/she did was a hate crime.

Dude... like, I totally get that white people are afraid that if they get into with non-whites and then the jury hears they made some off-color (hah) jokes, then they're gonna wind up in jail. It's kind of an irrational fear, but I get it. But work past the fear and consider the liklihood of that actually happening. Very low.

Plus, you would have to FIRST overlook that the bill in question, says like half a dozen damn times that it MUST NOT BE CONSTRUED TO IN ANY WAY IMPINGE ON FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS. So, you actually can't, because the law itself SAYS you can't, charge people under this statute because they write books about the evils of race mixing and attend Klan rallies on the weekends. The specific crime in question must be shown beyond reasonable doubt to have been motivated by the bias in question.

The speech itself is not a crime, but the speech could be used to condemn someone further if they commit a crime.The job of the court is not to change people's thinking.

The court doesn't seek to. This law doesn't even seek to (would never have passed if it did, constitution or no). The law seeks to deter, through threat of greater punishment, ACTION based on these thoughts.

If you are punishing a crime more severly because it is to one group, it is preferential treatment.

The law doesn't do that. At all. No one group is priveleged over another in this law. Read the fucking law before you go on and on about this.

Quote
If all the privileges under the law are exactly the same, it is the same except for the term used. The term is one that holds religious significance, not necessarily legal significance.

Marriage is a term with significant historical civil law significance, and unless the entire concept of civil marriage is eliminated and the state sanctionas NO marriage, creating civil unions as separate type of union to sit alongside marriage in civil law creates an inequity.

Quote
Therefore I would happily support a Civil Union with all the benefits of marriage except the term used. I believe most others would support it too, unless they were specifically homophobic. On that, I would then have to agree that it was acting in hate.

Per the NJ CURC - http://www.nj.gov/oag/dcr/downloads/CURC-Final-Report-.pdf - establishing functionally equivalent civil unions under law does not erase the inequity between those permitted to marry and those permitted to join in civil union. Perhaps there is SOME way to implement the scheme of separate but equivalent entities under law that does not perpetuate inequity, but more of the same-old-same-old ain't doing the trick.

What I don't get is why people continue to think that separate but theoretically equal is equitable. It's illogical, it's counterintuitive even!
« Last Edit: November 07, 2009, 07:38:41 PM by LucasJamison »
Logged
eveilebotenoynaecrofnacenoonsevlesmehtrofdniftsumlla
hguorhtraelcsemocebllagnidnapxerevesillahtiwenoemoceb
otsiezilaerotesuactsujtuohtiwforewollofrehtonamrahton
tlahsuohtsdrawotseyeriehtnrutohwlladiallahsuoynahtrehgih
ecrofonezingocerllahsuoyotnrutersgnihtllamorfemocsgniht
llanaemedotsinialpxeot

Fox McCloud

  • Dobakiin
  • Senior Staff
  • Mega Meeper
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1254
  • Double Exposure Secret Police
Re: Love Finally Wins Over Hate
« Reply #21 on: November 07, 2009, 07:09:20 PM »

Quote
Your belief counts for shit.

So does yours.  I just give mine without implying that it is the absolute truth.

Quote
When the issue that is being disagreed on is whether or not a certain group of people deserves to be treated as full human beings with all the attendant rights and privileges... then yes, there's going to be heated discussion.

Whoa whoa whoa.  Did I not just say that I am not argueing agensed civil rights or for biggotry at all?  Also I am just expressing my opinion on better ways to do it.  I am not shure if your accuseing me of being a raceist or if its cause you honestly perceve me to be one or the fact that I disagree with you. Ether way....I would have to politely ask you to stop.  Also who are these certain group of people that this law is protecting?  I thought it was supposed to protect everyone equally....

Quote
Those whose rights are secure enough that no one can serious discuss whether or not they should have them, have the incredible privilege to move through life ignoring these situations, and not having to get emotionally involved.

Again....What are you trying to say?  Enough.  You most likely know quite alot about a great deal of things.  But you don't know anything about me.  So.  Just stop.
« Last Edit: November 07, 2009, 07:16:48 PM by Fox McCloud »
Logged
"What the lion cannot manage to do, the Fox can."  -German Proverb

"The state that separates its scholars from its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards, and its fighting by fools."
Thucydides

"House Ares!  HOAH!"

LucasJamison

  • ?
  • Avatars
  • Super Meeper
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 802
Re: Love Finally Wins Over Hate
« Reply #22 on: November 07, 2009, 07:28:28 PM »

So does yours.  I just give mine without implying that it is the absolute truth.

Hah. You're the one who's all "these are my beliefs". I am stating facts, not personal impressions of a situation I clearly have done little research on. Your opinions are wrong - the facts do not support them. If you've got some kind of factual basis for your opinions, present it - perhaps I can clarify for you where you went wrong.

Quote
Whoa whoa whoa.  Did I not just say that I am not argueing agensed civil rights or for biggotry at all?

You're the one who was all "wow, people sure are getting riled about this, I don't get it". So, hopefully now you get it. Yes, people are riled. They are not OVERinvolved in their arguments, or hysterical, etc.

Quote
I am not shure if your accuseing me of being a raceist or if its cause you honestly perceve me to be one or the fact that I disagree with you. Ether way....I would have to politely ask you to stop.
 

LOL. If you're not sure I'm doing it, why would you ask me to stop? :) Anyway, for the record, I haven't called you anything. I've said I don't understand any reason to argue against laws intended to punish or prevent bias-motivated crimes, UNLESS you support violent haters. Because those are the only people hurt by such laws, and they damned well do deserve to be.

Quote
Also who are these certain group of people that this law is protecting?  I thought it was supposed to protect everyone equally....

You brought up the issue of why people get upset about this shit, why the discussion isn't all cool and dispassionate and such? I was explaining why, generally, and not limiting my response to the specific context of this law.

Quote
Again....What are you trying to say?  Enough.  You most likely know quite alot about a great deal of things.  But you don't know anything about me.  So.  Just stop.

Oh WEV. I've yet to call anyone a racist/homophobic/sexist/transphobic/etc/whatever douchebag. A lot of incredibly ignorant shit is getting said, though, and I'd like to see it stop. Seriously, WTF prompts people to be all 'woah, seems like people are too attached to the arguments'? Or to go on and on and on about what a law does without even reading it?
« Last Edit: November 07, 2009, 07:46:39 PM by LucasJamison »
Logged
eveilebotenoynaecrofnacenoonsevlesmehtrofdniftsumlla
hguorhtraelcsemocebllagnidnapxerevesillahtiwenoemoceb
otsiezilaerotesuactsujtuohtiwforewollofrehtonamrahton
tlahsuohtsdrawotseyeriehtnrutohwlladiallahsuoynahtrehgih
ecrofonezingocerllahsuoyotnrutersgnihtllamorfemocsgniht
llanaemedotsinialpxeot

Fox McCloud

  • Dobakiin
  • Senior Staff
  • Mega Meeper
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1254
  • Double Exposure Secret Police
Re: Love Finally Wins Over Hate
« Reply #23 on: November 08, 2009, 10:06:39 AM »

Quote
I've yet to call anyone a racist/homophobic/sexist/transphobic/etc/whatever douchebag.

You have done a damn good job of implying it.  But you just keep insulting me.  Fine keep on argueing here.  I would love to continue this arguement in person...Possibly at the next gathering.
Logged
"What the lion cannot manage to do, the Fox can."  -German Proverb

"The state that separates its scholars from its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards, and its fighting by fools."
Thucydides

"House Ares!  HOAH!"

LucasJamison

  • ?
  • Avatars
  • Super Meeper
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 802
Re: Love Finally Wins Over Hate
« Reply #24 on: November 08, 2009, 11:11:57 AM »

You have done a damn good job of implying it.  But you just keep insulting me.  Fine keep on argueing here.  I would love to continue this arguement in person...Possibly at the next gathering.

In what way have I insulted you? By saying your opinion, which, as it happens, is demonstrably wrong and unsupported by the facts,  counts for shit? I'm sorry if that's offensive to you, but it's also true.

You kind of also need to let go of your defensiveness re: the *ist/*phobe label. I'm not calling you these things. If you find yourself discomfitted by the way your arguments support positions you don't agree with, then rather than be all pissy at me, you should probably spend some time re-examining your arguments.
Logged
eveilebotenoynaecrofnacenoonsevlesmehtrofdniftsumlla
hguorhtraelcsemocebllagnidnapxerevesillahtiwenoemoceb
otsiezilaerotesuactsujtuohtiwforewollofrehtonamrahton
tlahsuohtsdrawotseyeriehtnrutohwlladiallahsuoynahtrehgih
ecrofonezingocerllahsuoyotnrutersgnihtllamorfemocsgniht
llanaemedotsinialpxeot

Fox McCloud

  • Dobakiin
  • Senior Staff
  • Mega Meeper
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1254
  • Double Exposure Secret Police
Re: Love Finally Wins Over Hate
« Reply #25 on: November 08, 2009, 12:55:50 PM »

Already been done.  I actually have already changed my mind based on the various points that have been laved out.  Had to take care of stuff so my previous post was cut short. 

I do think that the law will actually effectively help reduce hate crimes.  But I still stand by my position that it will likely throw fuel on the fire for some (The some being the community of already racists).  So yes the majority of people who will not support this law will be racists.  Not all of course seeing as you can never really say ALL people who do A must be B.  My stance on it is that yeah it will help with hate crime but may not help in some ways with hate in general. I am clarifying my meaning when I said ignoring race.  Not ignoring it as in disregarding your culture heritage sexual orientation but to be who you are regardless of these things not for everyone and conform and be exactly the same as everyone else and treated as such.  To be able to be able to be who you are without the constraints of what you are.   

Quote
In what way have I insulted you? By saying your opinion, which, as it happens, is demonstrably wrong and unsupported by the facts,  counts for shit? I'm sorry if that's offensive to you, but it's also true.

No.  Arguing agensed me and disagreeing with me does not insult me one bit.  In fact I would like to take the chance to agree with the one who made the observation lets not all get so riled up over disagreements....Oh wait I said that didn't I....  What I am insulted by is the things that you implied on a more personal level.  The implication that I must be racist.  And that I am an ignorant douche bag who has no idea what I am talking about and am making arguments based on nothing.  I actually do believe I know a thing or two about all this and I base my opinion through personal observation and from various experiences that I would rather not talk about.   I actually realize my opinion counts for shit....Knew that before my first post.  But I don't mind admitting that what I say doesn't matter at all.  But guess what...Yours means about as much as mine.  Were on a gaming convention company's forum the conclusion this thread comes to will not change anything.  I also don't mind admitting that I very well could be wrong and am open to other peoples ideas.

Quote
You kind of also need to let go of your defensiveness re: the *ist/*phobe label. I'm not calling you these things. If you find yourself discomfited by the way your arguments support positions you don't agree with, then rather than be all pissy at me, you should probably spend some time re-examining your arguments.


My defensiveness comes from being called something I am not.  I am not upset with you over the argument or ether one of our stances on this.  Even though I have changed my stance on it I would still like to discuss this in person at the next gathering.  I look forward to speaking with you.
Logged
"What the lion cannot manage to do, the Fox can."  -German Proverb

"The state that separates its scholars from its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards, and its fighting by fools."
Thucydides

"House Ares!  HOAH!"

LucasJamison

  • ?
  • Avatars
  • Super Meeper
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 802
Re: Love Finally Wins Over Hate
« Reply #26 on: November 08, 2009, 02:04:19 PM »

But I still stand by my position that it will likely throw fuel on the fire for some (The some being the community of already racists). So yes the majority of people who will not support this law will be racists.  Not all of course seeing as you can never really say ALL people who do A must be B.

I don't disagree with what you're saying here, but wonder why it is meaningful to the discussion of the passage of the law.

My stance on it is that yeah it will help with hate crime but may not help in some ways with hate in general.

As others have pointed out, you can't legislate against hate, and due to the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution, you can't really legislate against hateful speech or violent, eliminationist rhetoric. You are entirely correct in pointing out that hate crimes legislation will not reduce the general amount of prejudice in the country. What it MAY do, however, is reduce the degree to which people feel comfortable openly expressing that prejudice (not so much for fear of being brought up on charges, but for fear of being thought to be a bigot - because even bigots don't like to be CALLED that), which is a worthwhile goal in its own right.


Quote
I am clarifying my meaning when I said ignoring race.  Not ignoring it as in disregarding your culture heritage sexual orientation but to be who you are regardless of these things not for everyone and conform and be exactly the same as everyone else and treated as such.  To be able to be able to be who you are without the constraints of what you are.

For the record, this is actually not very clear. :) If you're saying what you meant is that people should embrace diversity and not be prejudiced against others because of negative stereotypes about the demographic groups to which those others appear to be members in, then I would consider rewording your statement significantly.

Quote
In fact I would like to take the chance to agree with the one who made the observation lets not all get so riled up over disagreements....Oh wait I said that didn't I....

Some disagreements are worth getting riled over.

Quote
What I am insulted by is the things that you implied on a more personal level.  The implication that I must be racist.  And that I am an ignorant douche bag who has no idea what I am talking about and am making arguments based on nothing.

I didn't imply that you were an ignorant douchebag. I went out of my way to assure you I was not calling you a whatever-ist/-phobic douchebag, in fact. I said your arguments were ignorant and uninformed because they are: if you do not know enough to see why they are clearly incorrect, then you are ignorant of the relevant facts. It's a statement of fact, not a value judgment about you as a person.

Quote
I also don't mind admitting that I very well could be wrong and am open to other peoples ideas.

Which is why we're having this drawn out conversation about how butthurt you are that I said you were wrong?

Quote
My defensiveness comes from being called something I am not.

As I have said so many times now, I have NOT (and review of my statements to date here will confirm this) called you a generally ignorant or *ist/*phobic douchebag or whatever. I've said, accurately, that you're ignorant on this topic, because you clearly are. I've said that you made arguments that support generally *ist/*phobic positions, because this is what those arguments do, whether you intend it so or not. You've said you've changed your mind on those issues, and no longer support those positions, so then yay, you should no reason to feel defensive.

Quote
Even though I have changed my stance on it I would still like to discuss this in person at the next gathering.  I look forward to speaking with you.

If you feel better able to communicate your ideas by speaking, rather than writing, I can appreciate this. If it's more of a privacy thing re: the things you'd rather not mention in public, I can similarly understand and respect that.

But, for future reference, it doesn't make much sense to jump into a discussion that will clearly cause these issues to come up if you don't want them to come up.
Logged
eveilebotenoynaecrofnacenoonsevlesmehtrofdniftsumlla
hguorhtraelcsemocebllagnidnapxerevesillahtiwenoemoceb
otsiezilaerotesuactsujtuohtiwforewollofrehtonamrahton
tlahsuohtsdrawotseyeriehtnrutohwlladiallahsuoynahtrehgih
ecrofonezingocerllahsuoyotnrutersgnihtllamorfemocsgniht
llanaemedotsinialpxeot

LucasJamison

  • ?
  • Avatars
  • Super Meeper
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 802
Re: Love Finally Wins Over Hate
« Reply #27 on: November 09, 2009, 02:06:08 PM »

Finally, but not enough. 's pretty weak, as it is.

Then, of course, we have hate triumphing once again... http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/maine-gay-marriage-law-repealed/story?id=8992720.

Of course, from desk of the one step forward, three steps back department, we have the not-so-fabulous-to-begin-with HR3962, complete with Stupak amendment.

Way to go Dems... rah rah.
Logged
eveilebotenoynaecrofnacenoonsevlesmehtrofdniftsumlla
hguorhtraelcsemocebllagnidnapxerevesillahtiwenoemoceb
otsiezilaerotesuactsujtuohtiwforewollofrehtonamrahton
tlahsuohtsdrawotseyeriehtnrutohwlladiallahsuoynahtrehgih
ecrofonezingocerllahsuoyotnrutersgnihtllamorfemocsgniht
llanaemedotsinialpxeot

Mack Ravensline

  • Avatars
  • Super Meeper
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 791
Re: Love Finally Wins Over Hate
« Reply #28 on: November 10, 2009, 02:52:33 PM »

There are MANY situations under law, civil or criminal, where an individual's intent must be proven, and CAN be proven to the satisfaction of the laws requirements WITHOUT admission of guilt by the defendent. What is so different about THIS case?
What is so different in this case is that you are leveling a seperate punishment dependant on thier motivations. Most laws punish actions, not the motivations behind them. The reason why the sentances for specific crimes vary is because they are supposed to be more severe in the cases where it is shown that the person is motivated to commit the crime again. In those cases the maximum penalty should be exercised to protect the populace, while hopefully the person who committed the crime is rehabilitated to the point where they will think twice about commiting that crime again.
The law just doesn't do that, though.
Did you read the law, by any chance? Because I can't find where it does this. It adds punishment for bias motivated crimes on basis certain classes - religious, ethnic, national origin, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, race. It protects Christians as much as Muslims, Whites as much as Blacks, and straights as much as gays. Seriously - before you open your mouth, at least try to do BASIC factchecking.
This is not the first time this type of legislation that has been passed or introduced. I honestly believe that those who wrote it believe it will not elevate one group above another. The problem is when you specifically write a law to protect people of even non-specific general classifications of people you elevate that as a difference between people that need special laws to protect. Laws are not supposed to elevate someone who is a part of a specific religion above those who are not, or those of a race that is not the majority above those who are of the majority. This much I can get without reading the bill. So kindly stuff your indignation that I did not read this law. The type of legislation, no matter how carefully worded is aimed to do just that.
Dude... like, I totally get that white people are afraid that if they get into with non-whites and then the jury hears they made some off-color (hah) jokes, then they're gonna wind up in jail. It's kind of an irrational fear, but I get it. But work past the fear and consider the liklihood of that actually happening. Very low.
Dude...This is not about white people at all. Lets say someone has an opinion about say immigration. Many including here, believe that you are a racist if you do not support giving all sorts of benefits to illegals. Now lets say that person commits a crime and the person he commits the crime against, just by happenstance is an illegal. It could be argued that he intentionally targetted that person for that reason because he hates them. This is not some irrational fear.
Plus, you would have to FIRST overlook that the bill in question, says like half a dozen damn times that it MUST NOT BE CONSTRUED TO IN ANY WAY IMPINGE ON FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS. So, you actually can't, because the law itself SAYS you can't, charge people under this statute because they write books about the evils of race mixing and attend Klan rallies on the weekends. The specific crime in question must be shown beyond reasonable doubt to have been motivated by the bias in question.
Unless the person in question specifically says yeah I killed him/her because... how would you prove it. You would show that the person has shown a past bias vs the group in question, then you would show that he was perhaps just talking about that group negatively, then committed the crime. That is trying to punish thought, and this is dangerous.
The court doesn't seek to. This law doesn't even seek to (would never have passed if it did, constitution or no). The law seeks to deter, through threat of greater punishment, ACTION based on these thoughts.
As I have said, to prove that a crime is committed because of a specific bias, you have to know exactly what the person's motivations were. Otherwise assuming takes place and you may convict due to false pretenses. Better to not have a law than the potential abuses this could cause through social justice. It is even worse when done for civil justice. Pure and simple, the laws should be made to judge actions regardless of motivation.
Marriage is a term with significant historical civil law significance, and unless the entire concept of civil marriage is eliminated and the state sanctionas NO marriage, creating civil unions as separate type of union to sit alongside marriage in civil law creates an inequity.
You are not going to change peoples opinions on whether this is right or wrong, what you can change is that you can allow gay couples to have the same rights as far as the government. By giving exactly the same legal rights to gay couples you satisfy this. That is what the laws can do. If they insist on calling it marriage, I assure you, it will not pass. It has ben voted down in practically every state it has been proposed, even California. It is not hate. It is simply that Marriage has a specific meaning in a majority of peoples minds. A great deaL OF WHICH WOULD HAPPILY GIVE THEM EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW.
Per the NJ CURC - http://www.nj.gov/oag/dcr/downloads/CURC-Final-Report-.pdf - establishing functionally equivalent civil unions under law does not erase the inequity between those permitted to marry and those permitted to join in civil union. Perhaps there is SOME way to implement the scheme of separate but equivalent entities under law that does not perpetuate inequity, but more of the same-old-same-old ain't doing the trick.

I respectfully disagree with thier findings.
What I don't get is why people continue to think that separate but theoretically equal is equitable. It's illogical, it's counterintuitive even!
And without a religious bent, you will never get why we do not want the term with great religious significance being used to classify homosexual unions. Noone is in any way trying to exclude them from the legal benefits of marriage, we just want a different term used for it. Words have great meanings.
Logged

Oni no Ted

  • Super Meeper
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 853
  • War never changes
Re: Love Finally Wins Over Hate
« Reply #29 on: November 12, 2009, 12:31:01 AM »

And without a religious bent, you will never get why we do not want the term with great religious significance being used to classify homosexual unions. No one is in any way trying to exclude them from the legal benefits of marriage, we just want a different term used for it.

So, you want the freedom to practice your beliefs as you see it, but won't let others practice their beliefs?


Words have great meanings.

As do the words 'Church' and 'State'

The state recognizing marriage as a religious issue is inherently hypocritical

'Separate but equal' is not equal
Logged
Ted Mantuano
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4   Go Up