Or you could make the comm package an unfolding self-guided glider plane. Balloon pops, packages senses it, unfolds, glides back to nearest assigned pick-up point using GPS.
You are gravely confused about the definition of a "hate crime". It isn't just a crime where someone can use the word "hate" in describing it. It is a crime intended to intimidate a class of people.
I didn't say anything about conspiring; the example was about planning ahead. But conspiracy is an equally valid example: why should it be more illegal to conspire to commit a crime than it is to simply commit the crime?
Nice Godwin by the way, all that talk of racism I'm surprised it took that long.
Yeah, I thought about going with Pol Pot, but what the hell. Not that it really is a Godwin, since I was sarcastically describing the logical conclusion of what you were arguing.
Way to ignore the point, by the way.
I don't subscribe to the mentality that police and courts can solve social problems such as racism and other hatred of minorities.
Who said anything about solving? Police and courts don't solve problems; they are supposed to clean up after them, and, with proper application, discourage future problems.
But as long as you're dismissing the idea of the law having anything to say about discrimination, why not overturn the Civil Rights Act and we can go back to "coloreds only" drinking fountains and such?
So why should the penalty for crimes involving racism be harsher if racism is not illegal?
Why should the penalty for killing involving planning ahead be harsher when planning ahead is not illegal? You might want to look up the term mens rea.
in the extreme case everyone is in a minority of one and could legitimately cry persecution
Right, because a group consisting of one person is exactly equivalent to one consisting of billions. This is why your run-of-the-mill street thug is exactly the same as, say, Hitler.
Face it, every crime ever committed could be construed as a hate crime.
Every crime ever committed was done as a way of persecuting a demographic? News to me, pal.
We should all be equal under the eyes of the law.
How is protecting all races, genders, etc. not equal protection? Come to that, how is not protecting all races, genders, etc. equal protection? Or protection at all?
They are both thoughtcrimes. You're just artificially putting more weight on being a racist over being an arsehole.
Is it "artificial" and a "thoughtcrime" to punish someone more for planning something ahead vs. doing it on the spur of the moment? To talk with someone else about it first vs. planning it all alone?
Courts and cops aren't going to solve racism by becoming thought police, but it won't stop them trying.
They're also not gonig to stop murder by becoming "nanny state anti-violence hall monitors" or whatever inflammatory propagandistic label you want to apply. But it can attenuate it.
We have to be equally intolerant of racists and plain vanilla arseholes if we value freedom of speech and thought.
It isn't illegal to be a racist, nor to be an asshole. It is illegal to act on those impulses in certain social interactions, though.
Who said anything about a special class of people? This is about a class of discrimination. KKK guys beat up a black guy to run blacks out of town? That's a hate crime. Black gang beats up white guy to keep crackas out of their turf? That's a hate crime.
There are no special classes in this, because you fall into one or another of the partitions along a discriminatory test. This is still equal protection under the law.
If a guy gets beat up in a bar, and it comes out that the assailants were using terms like "baldy" and "slaphead", then they get a harsher sentence, right?
I'm unaware of any laws setting hair length as a prohibited basis for discrimination. Could be added, though, if it starts being a problem.
My point was that, rather than bitching about the incorrect information, get in there and fix it. I thought my actions would speak louder than words, but I guess not for some...
THAT is why it is ridiculous. If someone shoots you, does it really matter to you (or society, for that matter) WHY it was done?
Why, yes, it does.
Why should you, as a minority (hypothetically speaking of course) be able to punish your attacker more than I, a member of the majority? Are you worth more to society than I? Who says so?
The value of one group of people vs. another doesn't enter into the question. It's the intimidating and/or chilling and/or provocative effects on the target group. Depending on the response, the attacking group may be further emboldened against the attacked group, leading to more violence and de facto oppression, or the attacked group may mount reprisals against the attacking group, leading to more violence and de facto states of feud. This is how (some) genocides and civil wars start.
ISN'T THAT RACISM??? (You need not answer. Of course it is.)
What it is is a diversionary straw man.
By their essential nature, "hate crime" laws are hypocritical and discriminatory. Those reasons alone are sufficient to remove them from the books, just like the other hypocritical and discriminatory laws that favor the "common folk" over minorities.
As far as I know, the hate crime laws don't say "blacks are protected but not whites". Or whatever X vs. Y you want. Neither are there reverse cases (any more).
Your final comparison I will just ignore. It has no bearing on the discussion at all. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and just presume that you simply misunderstood what I was trying to say.
You can ignore whatever you want; those with inconsistent views often do, in order to preserve them.
The fact is, however, that it does have a direct bearing on the discussion in that it represents another case of the exact same phenomenon -- the state of mind of the perpetrator determining, in part, the nature of the crime.
Whatever benefit of the doubt you wish to confer on me, the condescension remains unappreciated.
The difference between degrees of murder and manslaughter is the level of intent: did you plan ahead of time to kill him, decide to kill him on the spot, or not even mean to kill him at all, etc. That distinction is quite different from asking "why did you intend to kill him?"
And likewise, the difference between beating the hell out of a guy because he bumped into you in a bar is vastly different from beating the hell out of a guy because he bumped into you in a bar and we got to show them damn _____s they got to learn their place. One is an attack; the other is an attack intended to intimidate everyone like him.
Actually, as far as I can tell, pretty much anyone who claims to be a "content owner" ("imaginary propertyholders"?) can cancel any auction they deem not kosher, and there's pretty much not a damn thing you can do about it. Example: my wife bought some training materials from eBay. Later, she went to sell them, also on eBay. The auction was canceled by the manufacturers of the materials on the grounds that they don't allow anyone to resell the materials. Never mind that my wife was under no obligation nor contract with them; never mind that she had bought the things the exact same way without trouble. No, they stepped in and said no and no amount of arguing with eBay to the contrary nor facts relevant to the case would change the situation.
I have no problem with most of what you said...but...
Second, the US *does* have laws regarding "hate speech" and other "hate crimes". They might typically be state laws rather than federal, but that does not negate the fact that they exist in much if not most of the United States.
If by "hate speech laws", you mean US laws prohibiting certain subjects in speech, I'd like to see a list. I'm having a mighty hard time finding any. Are there, in fact, any laws (still standing) at any level in the US saying that you are not allowed to disparage thus-and-such-a group, or deny the Holocaust, or something along those lines?
Or are you talking about adjuncts to harassment and that kind of thing?
Having said that, I will add that I personally believe "hate crime" to be among the most ridiculous legal concepts so far devised by man.
Punishing one crime differently from another based on intent is ridiculous?
So I should assume you are against the different levels of murder and manslaughter? That you advocate that any wrongful death should be punished exactly as any other? That John Wayne Gacy should have received exactly the same punishment as an elderly man who screwed up in his car and ran down the same number of people at a farmer's market?
I had to pass through four armed checkpoints on my way to work today.
Sorry to hear that. I had to pass through an armed checkpoint on the way home from work last year. They were stopping every car and asking about alcohol.
Well then, the obvious solution is for everyone to start streaming loads of encrypted garbage traffic, all the time. Then when you want to P2P, you just substitute actual P2P traffic. Hey presto, no change in behavior = no suspicious behavior.
The erosion of the right to a trial by jury should scare the hell out of all of us.
As should the erosion of the public education system. That's something that undermines jury trials (by making juries dumber) as it does all other areas of a society.
The American people gave up on taking responsibility for themselves when the Great Depression hit. They had screwed up and instead of working themselves out of it, they turned to government to fix it.
But before I let you get away with treating "the government" as some mystical alien force: in the US at least, we are supposed to be the government. Or, more properly considered, the government is merely a tool we jointly wield. Refusing to use the large tool to solve the large problem is silly. Imagine refusing to use a car to travel 300 miles just because "that's being lazy and you should buckle down and walk it yourself".
Better than frickin' corporate pocket-liner Dianne Feinstein. I wrote to her about that damned telecomm immunity crap she was pushing, and not even a form letter came back.
Slashdot Mirror
Or you could make the comm package an unfolding self-guided glider plane. Balloon pops, packages senses it, unfolds, glides back to nearest assigned pick-up point using GPS.
My idea! Patent pending! Pay me!
You are gravely confused about the definition of a "hate crime". It isn't just a crime where someone can use the word "hate" in describing it. It is a crime intended to intimidate a class of people.
Way to ignore the point, by the way.Who said anything about solving? Police and courts don't solve problems; they are supposed to clean up after them, and, with proper application, discourage future problems.
But as long as you're dismissing the idea of the law having anything to say about discrimination, why not overturn the Civil Rights Act and we can go back to "coloreds only" drinking fountains and such?
The laws do not, repeat, do not, say this:They do say this:Do you see the difference? I'm beginning to wonder by now if you can.
The first, which is not how it is, and which you and those like you keep insisting it is, would create, as you say, a set of "special groups".
The second, which is how it actually is, specifically prevents the creation -- or continuation -- of "special groups".
If you still don't understand, I don't think you can be made to.
With that, I wash my hands of you.
Your point is that allowing discrimination on the basis of some stupid "us vs. them" criteria is perfectly fine? Wow. Ok, wow.
I bet it's a lot less than 25 cents per passenger, once amortized over the life of each gun.
There are no special classes in this, because you fall into one or another of the partitions along a discriminatory test. This is still equal protection under the law.I'm unaware of any laws setting hair length as a prohibited basis for discrimination. Could be added, though, if it starts being a problem.
P.S.:
My point was that, rather than bitching about the incorrect information, get in there and fix it. I thought my actions would speak louder than words, but I guess not for some...
The fact is, however, that it does have a direct bearing on the discussion in that it represents another case of the exact same phenomenon -- the state of mind of the perpetrator determining, in part, the nature of the crime.
Whatever benefit of the doubt you wish to confer on me, the condescension remains unappreciated.
Not anymore! Hee hee!
Actually, as far as I can tell, pretty much anyone who claims to be a "content owner" ("imaginary propertyholders"?) can cancel any auction they deem not kosher, and there's pretty much not a damn thing you can do about it. Example: my wife bought some training materials from eBay. Later, she went to sell them, also on eBay. The auction was canceled by the manufacturers of the materials on the grounds that they don't allow anyone to resell the materials. Never mind that my wife was under no obligation nor contract with them; never mind that she had bought the things the exact same way without trouble. No, they stepped in and said no and no amount of arguing with eBay to the contrary nor facts relevant to the case would change the situation.
She wound up selling them somewhere else.
Or are you talking about adjuncts to harassment and that kind of thing?Punishing one crime differently from another based on intent is ridiculous?
So I should assume you are against the different levels of murder and manslaughter? That you advocate that any wrongful death should be punished exactly as any other? That John Wayne Gacy should have received exactly the same punishment as an elderly man who screwed up in his car and ran down the same number of people at a farmer's market?
Our solar system's version of Mini-Me.
Well then, the obvious solution is for everyone to start streaming loads of encrypted garbage traffic, all the time. Then when you want to P2P, you just substitute actual P2P traffic. Hey presto, no change in behavior = no suspicious behavior.
But before I let you get away with treating "the government" as some mystical alien force: in the US at least, we are supposed to be the government. Or, more properly considered, the government is merely a tool we jointly wield. Refusing to use the large tool to solve the large problem is silly. Imagine refusing to use a car to travel 300 miles just because "that's being lazy and you should buckle down and walk it yourself".
Better than frickin' corporate pocket-liner Dianne Feinstein. I wrote to her about that damned telecomm immunity crap she was pushing, and not even a form letter came back.
"...unless there's a chance they won't pay, in which case, screw 'em."
And why are you against all of us joining forces to act as a single health-care-consuming entity? You know, strength in numbers.