But that makes the laws even more arbitrary than they are now.
The ONLY reason someone who has 5 grams of Cocaine should get a lower sentence than the one with a kilo of it is the intent to traffic. Other than that, it makes no difference.
Intent has to matter, because otherwise we end up with a system that has no middle-ground. And cases AREN'T black/white. Should the person who (truly) accidentally stabs someone get life in jail? No, that makes no sense. But the only reason you wouldn't is because they had no intent to kill them. Maybe they turned around too fast with a knife and didn't realize someone was right behind them (and I say this, because my dad totally did that last weekend, and just barely missed me).
Intent has to matter. To what extent is debatable. But there are MANY historical examples of systems where they didn't, and those governments all fell very, very quickly.
[EDIT]
Hate crimes do fall into this category, as it has to do with intent. It's premeditation.
Edited, Mar 31st 2010 12:28pm by idiggory
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- OK Sen. Strips Race/Religious Rights Instead of Gay's
OK Sen. Strips Race/Religious Rights Instead of Gay'sFollow
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people
lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
idiggory wrote:
But that makes the laws even more arbitrary than they are now.
I fail to see how.
idiggory wrote:
The ONLY reason someone who has 5 grams of Cocaine should get a lower sentence than the one with a kilo of it is the intent to traffic. Other than that, it makes no difference.
Perhaps then you begin to see the inanity of "preventative persecution".
idiggory wrote:
Intent has to matter, because otherwise we end up with a system that has no middle-ground. And cases AREN'T black/white. Should the person who (truly) accidentally stabs someone get life in jail? No, that makes no sense. But the only reason you wouldn't is because they had no intent to kill them. Maybe they turned around too fast with a knife and didn't realize someone was right behind them (and I say this, because my dad totally did that last weekend, and just barely missed me).
You assume there are accidental stabbings. I assume that if you pick up a knife in the presence of someone else and make stabby motions, you should be prepared to get death.
idiggory wrote:
Intent has to matter. To what extent is debatable. But there are MANY historical examples of systems where they didn't, and those governments all fell very, very quickly.
Please name one and illustrate how its "arbitrary" laws led to its demise.
I will not continue with this line of conversation. I will entertain any discussion attempting to justify hate crime legislation, however.
His Excellency MoebiusLord wrote:
LockeColeMA wrote:
Hate crimes however lend weight to the idea that sometimes a crime is committed that affects more than just a single individual, or that the individual was targeted solely because of one of their characteristics. The line of thinking behind this legislation is (likely) to reassure other members of the victim's characteristic that the gubbermint doesn't stand for that and anyone trying to do this will get punished HARD.
No one in this world has the right not to be offended. No one in this world can have their state of mind effected by another person unless they allow it to happen. Crimes that "effect" (which is the word you should have been going for, in case you were wondering) others only do so because the other allow themselves to be effected. The line of thinking behind the legislation is almost exactly what you have said, and equally retarded. The government is saying "you are all delicate little flowers that need reassurance and we want your votes." Emotional arguments FTW!
I agree with you for the most part Moe, but please don't torture language like that. He used the word "affect" correctly. Correcting him with the incorrect use of the word "effect" is painful...
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
gbaji wrote:
His Excellency MoebiusLord wrote:
LockeColeMA wrote:
Hate crimes however lend weight to the idea that sometimes a crime is committed that affects more than just a single individual, or that the individual was targeted solely because of one of their characteristics. The line of thinking behind this legislation is (likely) to reassure other members of the victim's characteristic that the gubbermint doesn't stand for that and anyone trying to do this will get punished HARD.
No one in this world has the right not to be offended. No one in this world can have their state of mind effected by another person unless they allow it to happen. Crimes that "effect" (which is the word you should have been going for, in case you were wondering) others only do so because the other allow themselves to be effected. The line of thinking behind the legislation is almost exactly what you have said, and equally retarded. The government is saying "you are all delicate little flowers that need reassurance and we want your votes." Emotional arguments FTW!
I agree with you for the most part Moe, but please don't torture language like that. He used the word "affect" correctly. Correcting him with the incorrect use of the word "effect" is painful...
You should quit while you're behind. There's no reason to start in on me just because I'm more articulate and have a better grasp on the language.
The word was used in reference to the result (effect) of an action (or cause). Two possible shortcomings: either he's inarticulate or he's inaccurate.
The up shot is you're still a verbose mother f'ucker.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
His Excellency MoebiusLord wrote:
The word was used in reference to the result (effect) of an action (or cause).
In that sentence, "affects" is a verb.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
gbaji wrote:
His Excellency MoebiusLord wrote:
The word was used in reference to the result (effect) of an action (or cause).
In that sentence, "affects" is a verb.
I know. The wrong one. They are effected. New "emotional states" were created.
LockeColeMA wrote:
Hate crimes however lend weight to the idea that sometimes a crime is committed that affects more than just a single individual, or that the individual was targeted solely because of one of their characteristics.
Sorry. I wasn't clear. In the sentence above, "affects" is a verb and is used properly.
You wrote:
No one in this world can have their state of mind effected by another person unless they allow it to happen.
In this sentence, "effected" is a verb and is used improperly. The fact that you added an "ed" to the end should have been your first clue...
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
When you do something that affects someone, you cause an effect on them. Of course, you might take on an affect of indifference and therefore effect a change in opinion.
It's grating to me when I see people get this backwards. Doubly so when someone corrects someone else who's doing it right.
It's grating to me when I see people get this backwards. Doubly so when someone corrects someone else who's doing it right.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
gbaji wrote:
When you do something that affects someone, you cause an effect on them. Of course, you might take on an affect of indifference and therefore effect a change in opinion.
It's grating to me when I see people get this backwards. Doubly so when someone corrects someone else who's doing it right.
It's grating to me when I see people get this backwards. Doubly so when someone corrects someone else who's doing it right.
So both you and Moe are wrong.
"I started out with nothin' and I still got most of it left" - Seasick Steve
Lord Nobby wrote:
gbaji wrote:
When you do something that affects someone, you cause an effect on them. Of course, you might take on an affect of indifference and therefore effect a change in opinion.
It's grating to me when I see people get this backwards. Doubly so when someone corrects someone else who's doing it right.
It's grating to me when I see people get this backwards. Doubly so when someone corrects someone else who's doing it right.
Er? I included that case in my examples above. Heck. I even used the phrase "effect a change". You need glasses old man?
Quote:
So both you and Moe are wrong.
*cough*
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Lord Nobby wrote:
gbaji wrote:
When you do something that affects someone, you cause an effect on them. Of course, you might take on an affect of indifference and therefore effect a change in opinion.
It's grating to me when I see people get this backwards. Doubly so when someone corrects someone else who's doing it right.
It's grating to me when I see people get this backwards. Doubly so when someone corrects someone else who's doing it right.
So both you and Moe are wrong.
OTST
It's our language now, *****.
(come on, how often does gbaji get to argue something where he's mostly right? Of course I used the wrong word)
Recent Visitors: 238
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (238)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- OK Sen. Strips Race/Religious Rights Instead of Gay's
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC