I suppose you must live in a world where clumsy people do things like "shoot themselves in the back of the head" and "drop barbells on their own necks",
Pretty much. I live below the Mason-Dixon line. The above 2 examples wouldn't even make a top ten of "Dumbest Ways Floridians Killed Themselves in 2016".
I presume that's in USD as well, so paying $180 US ($240CDN) per year to *not* own any games vs me picking up a used PS3 on Craigslist for $100CDN and then buying used games at $5-$15 per game, I just don't see the value proposition here.
Can't disagree with you there, but I do think you're underestimating the target audience's laziness.
To Be honest, the main difference between socialism and Capitalism is the fact that capitalism actually accounts for greed and deception
Which is why it's been so successful. However, it still depends on 'rational actors' in order not start sliding into shitshow territory.
You can see this in Bernie type people who always seem to spew about the "rich" paying "their fair share"... and then run off and buy a $600K beach house, his 3rd home. It is all well and good as long as it is the OTHER guy that pays.
This sentence would make more sense if you'd linked to the article where Bernie fought against a tax increase on his properties.
You only need to prove intent or lack or it. It doesn't matter if you kill a man because he banged your wife, or if you hate his mother, his religion, ethnicity, or anything else. Intent is simply intent. The reasons why are totally irrelevant, aside from maybe proving intent, but regardless, the penalty should be the same.
Centuries of case law are completely at odds with your idea.
Why should that be different?
Simply put: refinement. If you're trying to make the argument that a reckless driver should get the exact same sentence as the guy who plotted his crime with great precision and detail, I'm not sure I can personally disagree. But again, centuries of law have, brick by brick, built up the idea that a criminal's goals are of vital importance in determining the severity of the crime and its attendant punishment.
Whether you realize it or not you are defending hate crime laws.
No, I'm defending its structural underpinnings. Where it goes from here, as I've mentioned already, I'm not personally comfortable with.
Also worth pointing out that this is an important point in challenging hate crime laws. Most of the anti-arguments focus on the stupidity of intent, when it's heavily baked into the system. Better to make the case that the system is already sufficiently flexible to handle the load.
Which would be fine except that western law, for centuries now, has deemed the question of 'why' to be of critical importance in adjudicating criminal law.
Them being shot for being gay or muslim doesn't make their murder ANY more important
If you go with "hate" crime, you are essentially saying their life is worth more than other peoples' lives.
You've got it backwards, intent is not about the final state of the crime, but what the criminal was attempting to achieve with his crime.
In what way? I was just explaining why motivation was important in response to your question.
The law already breaks it down for us without involving "hate".
No argument here. I'm already well on record as not being a fan of this particular strategery since we already have a well-developed concept of mens rea which I feel is sufficient gradation.
Criminal justice needs to be a lot less driven by emotion
Won't happen until the human race evolves out of its desire for misery porn.
Is it worse for a person to plan to kill someone at random and do it....vs that same person to plan to kill someone at random and was also specifically black/gay/female/indian/muslim ?
By the logic of your question, the second crime wasn't at random, the person was singled out for their ethnicity or gender. That specificity makes it a different crime.
Can somebody tell me why motivation makes a difference?
Because intent matters. Would you give a murderer who planned his crime with utmost precision the same sentence as the guy who ran over a pedestrian because he was driving too fast?
You're really not good at reading tone, are you?. FWIW, my original reply is not meant as an insult to him, but a compliment. The dude's a party monster, and it's a good thing.
Slashdot Mirror
Social contracts are for little snowflakes
I'm pretty sure John Locke could take you in a fight.
Keep telling yourself that, old timer.
'fraid so, sarcasm truly is dead.. killed by political correctness.
Demonstrably untrue. Else I'd be getting deliriously drunk at your funeral.
I suppose you must live in a world where clumsy people do things like "shoot themselves in the back of the head" and "drop barbells on their own necks",
Pretty much. I live below the Mason-Dixon line. The above 2 examples wouldn't even make a top ten of "Dumbest Ways Floridians Killed Themselves in 2016".
You know, The Diamond Age is not an instruction manual.
Sweet Jesus, but there's a lot of slashdotters think they live in a Dan Brown novel.
I presume that's in USD as well, so paying $180 US ($240CDN) per year to *not* own any games vs me picking up a used PS3 on Craigslist for $100CDN and then buying used games at $5-$15 per game, I just don't see the value proposition here.
Can't disagree with you there, but I do think you're underestimating the target audience's laziness.
Now I can deny having actually played GTA V for 368 hours.
Pfff, punk! Call me when you have 6K hours on a game!
Bernie, the rich powerful "Socialist" fought to keep his taxes low
Did he?
If what you said is true, Bernie would be proof that they are, indeed regressive.
I don't understand this sentence. Could you clarify?
But it can play no rightful role in defining a crime.
it already does, so I'm not sure what you're arguing here.
But if Person B was a member of some racial minority and Person A was not, you would probably want to tack on some sort of racial hate crime
You might want to read my other comments in this thread.
Yeah, I know I'm going up against tradition here,
Just a lil more complicated than that, but sure.
Case law has become a prison
Doubt it.
To Be honest, the main difference between socialism and Capitalism is the fact that capitalism actually accounts for greed and deception
... and then run off and buy a $600K beach house, his 3rd home. It is all well and good as long as it is the OTHER guy that pays.
Which is why it's been so successful. However, it still depends on 'rational actors' in order not start sliding into shitshow territory.
You can see this in Bernie type people who always seem to spew about the "rich" paying "their fair share"
This sentence would make more sense if you'd linked to the article where Bernie fought against a tax increase on his properties.
You only need to prove intent or lack or it. It doesn't matter if you kill a man because he banged your wife, or if you hate his mother, his religion, ethnicity, or anything else. Intent is simply intent. The reasons why are totally irrelevant, aside from maybe proving intent, but regardless, the penalty should be the same.
Centuries of case law are completely at odds with your idea.
Why should that be different?
Simply put: refinement. If you're trying to make the argument that a reckless driver should get the exact same sentence as the guy who plotted his crime with great precision and detail, I'm not sure I can personally disagree. But again, centuries of law have, brick by brick, built up the idea that a criminal's goals are of vital importance in determining the severity of the crime and its attendant punishment.
Whether you realize it or not you are defending hate crime laws.
No, I'm defending its structural underpinnings. Where it goes from here, as I've mentioned already, I'm not personally comfortable with.
Also worth pointing out that this is an important point in challenging hate crime laws. Most of the anti-arguments focus on the stupidity of intent, when it's heavily baked into the system. Better to make the case that the system is already sufficiently flexible to handle the load.
A dead person is a dead person.
Which would be fine except that western law, for centuries now, has deemed the question of 'why' to be of critical importance in adjudicating criminal law.
Them being shot for being gay or muslim doesn't make their murder ANY more important
If you go with "hate" crime, you are essentially saying their life is worth more than other peoples' lives.
You've got it backwards, intent is not about the final state of the crime, but what the criminal was attempting to achieve with his crime.
You could say the same about capitalism.
Why would #2 be worse than #1.
Because in #1, the intent is murder. In #2, the intent is murder and terrorism against a specific group of people.
The result is exactly the same
They're not. In #1, someone is dead. In #2, someone is dead as a result of their circumstances of birth, or choice of religion
You are picking nits.
In what way? I was just explaining why motivation was important in response to your question.
The law already breaks it down for us without involving "hate".
No argument here. I'm already well on record as not being a fan of this particular strategery since we already have a well-developed concept of mens rea which I feel is sufficient gradation.
Criminal justice needs to be a lot less driven by emotion
Won't happen until the human race evolves out of its desire for misery porn.
Is it worse for a person to plan to kill someone at random and do it....vs that same person to plan to kill someone at random and was also specifically black/gay/female/indian/muslim ?
By the logic of your question, the second crime wasn't at random, the person was singled out for their ethnicity or gender. That specificity makes it a different crime.
Nope, the difference in intent is what creates two different crimes.
Can somebody tell me why motivation makes a difference?
Because intent matters. Would you give a murderer who planned his crime with utmost precision the same sentence as the guy who ran over a pedestrian because he was driving too fast?
No, I read you wrong. Very wrong. So wrong. I feel like the protagonist in an HP Lovecraft story now.
Just...fuck, man, really? That comment, a while back, that was a joke. Why'd you have to make it real?
It's what makes him kinda special.
0.0
You're really not good at reading tone, are you?. FWIW, my original reply is not meant as an insult to him, but a compliment. The dude's a party monster, and it's a good thing.