Hate Crime

[zoo22]

Not necessarily. There is religious terrorism within societies, political terrorism *within* societies.

Looking over that I realized it could be mis-read. It's incomplete. ...

There is religious terrorism within societies that is not meant to bring down a society as a whole as well as political terrorism *within* a society that is not meant to overthrow the society as a whole.

There is terrorism that does not encompass overthrow of a complete society.

 

[Frank Ernest]

Looking over that I realized it could be mis-read. It's incomplete. ...

There is religious terrorism within societies that is not meant to bring down a society as a whole as well as political terrorism *within* a society that is not meant to overthrow the society as a whole.

There is terrorism that does not encompass overthrow of a complete society.

Then why do terrorists continually state that the overthrow of a social order (society) is their goal? Attempting to elevate "hate" crime to terrorism points out that you are ready to move on your political and religious enemies by uping the ante.

Nice try.

 

[zoo22]

Then why do terrorists continually state that the overthrow of a social order (society) is their goal? Attempting to elevate "hate" crime to terrorism points out that you are ready to move on your political and religious enemies by uping the ante.

Nice try.

It's a fact that there are terrorists who's goal is not to overthrow a complete society. Yes, *many* terrorists state that the overthrow of a social order is their goal. Not necessarily a "complete overthrow" of that society. But no problem, I'm fine separating hate crime from terrorism, and to define terrorism, as our government has, as having specifically political motives. Redefinitions and reinterpretations of words is necessary sometimes when dealing with law (or the modern world for tha matter), and we have to accept that a words take on new, specific meaning.

The State Dept. defines terrorism as "The calculated use of violence or the threat of violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological." The FBI defines it this way: "Terrorism is the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives." Neither is as as simple as some people would like to make it (note that the State department uses the word "generally").

It is generally social issues that are the issue in what we define as hate crime. Would you prefer a different label? Or is it that you see the entire issue as something that does not need to be addressed (crimes against people specifically because of religion, color, origin, etc.).

 

[Frank Ernest]

It's a fact that there are terrorists who's goal is not to overthrow a complete society. Yes, *many* terrorists state that the overthrow of a social order is their goal. Not necessarily a "complete overthrow" of that society. But no problem, I'm fine separating hate crime from terrorism, and to define terrorism, as our government has, as having specifically political motives. Redefinitions and reinterpretations of words is necessary sometimes when dealing with law (or the modern world for tha matter), and we have to accept that a words take on new, specific meaning.

Linguistic cop-out. If the law is so fluid as to be reinvented with "new meanings", then there is no law, only what some tyrant or group of tyrants say it is.

The State Dept. defines terrorism as "The calculated use of violence or the threat of violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological." The FBI defines it this way: "Terrorism is the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives." Neither is as as simple as some people would like to make it (note that the State department uses the word "generally").

Then you would agree that lie-berals are both terrorists and "hate" criminals.

It is generally social issues that are the issue in what we define as hate crime. Would you prefer a different label? Or is it that you see the entire issue as something that does not need to be addressed (crimes against people specifically because of religion, color, origin, etc.).

I would prefer no label at all. We have laws against murder, rape, robbery, assault, etc. No need to pile on the perp with a lot of emotional claptrap and subsequent show trials. What makes a crime more significant if the victim happens to be of some favored ethnic or social group? Nothing other than emotional favoritism which has no basis in any rational justice system.

 

[zoo22]

Linguistic cop-out. If the law is so fluid as to be reinvented with "new meanings", then there is no law, only what some tyrant or group of tyrants say it is.

What I said is not a linguistic cop-out, it is a solid fact. Law does, and must assign definition to words.

Words constantly take on new meaning (not to mention that most words have multiple meanings). Language evolves. Definitions, perceptions, associations of words constantly change. This is a given part of language. The dictionary is updated regulary to redefine words, as they take on new or different meanings. Terrorism once did not mean what it currently is accepted to mean, partially through the definition as defined by the law.

I gave you the definitions that our government has given to the word "terrorism" Do you not think that it was necessary for our government to do so!?!

The State Dept. defines terrorism as "The calculated use of violence or the threat of violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological." The FBI defines it this way: "Terrorism is the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives." Neither is as as simple as some people would like to make it (note that the State department uses the word "generally").

Then you would agree that lie-berals are both terrorists and "hate" criminals.

This has turned ugly. No, I would not agree. And I want to make certain that you are not implying in any way that liberals are terrorists, or that they are not anti-terrorist. Because that is what your post seems to be saying. I don't take that lightly. There are both right-wing and left-wing terrorists. In my eyes they are equally despicable.

Besides which, I have absolutely no idea as to what your response was based on.

I would prefer no label at all. We have laws against murder, rape, robbery, assault, etc. No need to pile on the perp with a lot of emotional claptrap and subsequent show trials. What makes a crime more significant if the victim happens to be of some favored ethnic or social group? Nothing other than emotional favoritism which has no basis in any rational justice system.

These laws are not about "favored" groups. "Religious" is not a favored group. "Race" is not a favored group. "Origin" is not a favored group...

 

[Frank Ernest]

What I said is not a linguistic cop-out, it is a solid fact. Law does, and must assign definition to words.

The meanings of those words must be taken from the time they were written, not some current shift in meaning.

Words constantly take on new meaning (not to mention that most words have multiple meanings). Language evolves. Definitions, perceptions, associations of words constantly change. This is a given part of language. The dictionary is updated regulary to redefine words, as they take on new or different meanings. Terrorism once did not mean what it currently is accepted to mean, partially through the definition as defined by the law.

See above.

I gave you the definitions that our government has given to the word "terrorism" Do you not think that it was necessary for our government to do so!?!

Government does what government does. Necessity has nothing to do with it.

This has turned ugly. No, I would not agree. And I want to make certain that you are not implying in any way that liberals are terrorists, or that they are not anti-terrorist. Because that is what your post seems to be saying. I don't take that lightly. There are both right-wing and left-wing terrorists. In my eyes they are equally despicable.

There's no "seem" about it. Lie-berals are terrorists.

Besides which, I have absolutely no idea as to what your response was based on.

Figures.

These laws are not about "favored" groups. "Religious" is not a favored group. "Race" is not a favored group. "Origin" is not a favored group...

:cow: The law gives privilege to the mentioned groups and legislates against the not-mentioned groups. Try suing a black employer for not hiring enough whites and you'll get the picture.

 

[zoo22]

Law does, and must assign definition to words

The meanings of those words must be taken from the time they were written, not some current shift in meaning.

Well, the word Terrorism actually was first used in regards to a ruling government against their own civilians: "System or rule of terror." Obviously it's changed. I don't know when. I have no problem with the government giving a specific definition of the word and of the way we understand it related to our world. As I've said, I think it's an extremely blurry word, and given current events, I think it warrants a clear definition as it pertains to the US.

Government does what government does. Necessity has nothing to do with it.

I agree, sometimes Government does sometime find ways to do what it wants to do. When that occurs without the consent of the people, it's wrong. Necessity DOES have everything to do with it. If you don't believe that it was necessary that the government define what the US considers terrorism in the wake of 911, I disagree.

Before cars, there was likely litle need for jaywalking laws. I don't know if they existed, or when they first came into being. I don't really care. (though now I'm kind anterested). I don't think that most people think too much about them, and in a lot of instances, they seem kind of stupid and self-evident. But I'm sure that most people would agree that they're there for a reason. And I have no doubt that the legislation didn't exist until the reason arose, through a specific incident. At that point (maybe when a guy named Jay walked out into a street and caused an accident ;-) ), it became necessary that a definition be put into place in law.

This has turned ugly. No, I would not agree. And I want to make certain that you are not implying in any way that liberals are terrorists, or that they are not anti-terrorist. Because that is what your post seems to be saying. I don't take that lightly. There are both right-wing and left-wing terrorists. In my eyes they are equally despicable.

There's no "seem" about it. Lie-berals are terrorists.

Well, glad you were clear about it. Like I said, I don't take that lightly. You essentially just called me a terrorist, which is not true. Yours is a frightening, extremely dangerous train, without respect towards freedom of speech or thought. It's an insult to me and to much of what America is founded upon. I am not a terrorist, liberals are not terrorists, and I resent the statement. I won't go any further with this part of the discussion, except to say that it is the blind intolerance and hatred your statement expresses that leads to both separatism, and totalitarianism. Perhaps this is what you want. I don't know.

:cow: The law gives privilege to the mentioned groups and legislates against the not-mentioned groups.

The US Constitution gives clarification to specific groups to form our basis of rights, freedom and equality. It does not, however, favor one group over another through that clarification. Legislation aimed at intimidation targeting an entire, specific group via crime does not legislate against any specific group and does not favor any specific group (even if the intimidating crime was committed in the name of another specific group).

A man of Irish origin kills a man of German origin solely based on the fact that he is of German origin with the intent to instill fear and/or intimidate other people of German origin. The legislation does not favor German origin over Irish origin in any way. Hate crime legislation does not give privilege to one group over another. As our Consitution does not, even though there is clarification of specific groups in our Consitution.

Try suing a black employer for not hiring enough whites and you'll get the picture.

"Hate crime" legislation has nothing to do with hiring issues. That's a different issue, which is better suited for a different thread. At least bother to understand what we're talking about.

 

[zoo22]

For anyone following this thread, I just want to say that I was actually beginning to SLIGHTLY change my view. Some of you raised some interesting points. Ideas of thought as it relates to legislation. After those last 2 interactions, I'll stay where I am. I know why hate-crime laws exist. And if someone can somehow label a broad and vast group like "liberals" all as terrorists, I can deal with a perhaps mis-named law that is set in place to protect groups that are being targeted and intimidated. ALL LIBERALS ARE TERRORISTS? Please. What that statement succeeded in doing was make it more difficult for me to listen to or try to understand another side, which is what I came here to do.

 

[Frank Ernest]

The "other side", as you put it, has been DEFINED by the politically-correct as "hate."
Any disagreement, any suspect reference, any off-handed remark, by the "other side" is DEFINED ipso facto as "hate."

Yes, I know why so-called "hate" crime laws exist too. They are there to punish the very politically-incorrect thoughts, or ASSUMED thoughts, a person might have. "Hate" crimes are social engineering and have nothing to do with justice.

Let us consider some simple examples. An assault. One man assaults another. If the man who did the assault is white and the man assaulted is black - "hate" crime" which carries a more severe penalty than a normal assault would. However, if the the man assaulted is white and the man who did the assault is black, we must consider how the black man was provoked. Four hundred years of slavery and all that. Presumptive innocence.

Clear it up a little for ya?

 

[BillyBob]

Yep!

 

[zoo22]

The "other side", as you put it, has been DEFINED by the politically-correct as "hate."
Any disagreement, any suspect reference, any off-handed remark, by the "other side" is DEFINED ipso facto as "hate."

Yes, I know why so-called "hate" crime laws exist too. They are there to punish the very politically-incorrect thoughts, or ASSUMED thoughts, a person might have. "Hate" crimes are social engineering and have nothing to do with justice.

Let us consider some simple examples. An assault. One man assaults another. If the man who did the assault is white and the man assaulted is black - "hate" crime" which carries a more severe penalty than a normal assault would. However, if the the man assaulted is white and the man who did the assault is black, we must consider how the black man was provoked. Four hundred years of slavery and all that. Presumptive innocence.

Clear it up a little for ya?

After the terrorist-calling idiocy, I'll stay away from dealing with Frank. Anyone else feels like discussing it rationally no problem. The post above is bordering nonsenical, btw, let alone having any grasp of the actual laws.

 

[Mr. 5020]

After the terrorist-calling idiocy, I'll stay away from dealing with Frank. Anyone else feels like discussing it rationally no problem. The post above is bordering nonsenical, btw, let alone having any grasp of the actual laws.

What part of it is nonsensical? For sure the third paragraph is factual.

 

[zoo22]

What part of it is nonsensical? For sure the third paragraph is factual.

1) What "other side" is he referring to that he quotes me on? I didn't say that. If he means my saying "What [his all liberals are terrorists] statement succeeded in doing was make it more difficult for me to listen to or try to understand another side," it's misread, misquoted, and taken out of context in his response.

Not to mention that even if he were on point, he's making a ridiculous assertion that the "politically-correct" (by which I am assuming he means liberals, or rather, terrorists) have defined "the other side" (by which I am assuming he means the right-wing) as "hate" !? ... That's nonsense. Just because HE is somehow able to label groups without regard or respect to truth (liberals are terrorists!) doesn't mean that everyone else does the same. Thankfully.

2) Any disagreement, any suspect reference, any off-handed remark is "defined ispo facto as hate" ... Wha?!?

3) The laws we're talking about have to do with actions. People are free to hate.

The 3rd paragraph is simply a sidestep, by bringing presumptive innocence into it. Where does it say that if it's a black man assaulting a white man that "four hundred years of slavery and all that" is to be taken into account? Don't bother looking ... It doesn't say it anywhere. Where does it say that "If the man who did the assault is white and the man assaulted is black - 'hate' crime" ? Again, don't bother looking for it. It's not there.

But while those things might not be found, he might want to bother taking a look at the laws, so he can understand what he's against. Or maybe he needs to look inside himself to understand. Or maybe he already knows and is misusing the issue of hate crime as a vehicle to express it.

 

[Frank Ernest]

1) What "other side" is he referring to that he quotes me on? I didn't say that. If he means my saying "What [his all liberals are terrorists] statement succeeded in doing was make it more difficult for me to listen to or try to understand another side," it's misread, misquoted, and taken out of context in his response.

Typical lie-beral cop-out. "Listen" to both sides and declare one's preconceived notions to be correct.

Not to mention that even if he were on point, he's making a ridiculous assertion that the "politically-correct" (by which I am assuming he means liberals, or rather, terrorists) have defined "the other side" (by which I am assuming he means the right-wing) as "hate" !? ... That's nonsense. Just because HE is somehow able to label groups without regard or respect to truth (liberals are terrorists!) doesn't mean that everyone else does the same. Thankfully.

The entrenchment against reason continues ...

2) Any disagreement, any suspect reference, any off-handed remark is "defined ispo facto as hate" ... Wha?!?

Don't get out much, do you?

3) The laws we're talking about have to do with actions. People are free to hate.

Read them again.

The 3rd paragraph is simply a sidestep, by bringing presumptive innocence into it. Where does it say that if it's a black man assaulting a white man that "four hundred years of slavery and all that" is to be taken into account? Don't bother looking ... It doesn't say it anywhere. Where does it say that "If the man who did the assault is white and the man assaulted is black - 'hate' crime" ? Again, don't bother looking for it. It's not there.

Ever seen legal arguments presented in a criminal case? Didn't think so.

But while those things might not be found, he might want to bother taking a look at the laws, so he can understand what he's against. Or maybe he needs to look inside himself to understand. Or maybe he already knows and is misusing the issue of hate crime as a vehicle to express it.

More typical lie-beral argument. Doesn't understand, therefore, must "look inside himself." Either that or he is deliberately misstating the case. That's good. Two lie-beral :cow: arguments in one breath.