This still goes on?Follow

I'm actually going to have to agree with gbaji here, sans the portion where minimizes the contributions of societal norms.

I don't 100% agree with shadow, but he is right that you will attack anyone who doesn't support some form homosexual anything...

Ironic, I left the asylum a few days to read Shadow's thread on the RDM forum and he we're again lol

Oh, I know. But say I really had it in for plumbers. I hate them, and I go on a tear where I brutally murder 6 plumbers. Or people with brown hair. Or CEO's. Or left-handed people. Why should that be any different? They all show a certain mindset: a driving hatred and irrationality that spurs me to hurt or kill whatever's got my goat. Every comparable crime to a "hate crime" is a hate crime. There isn't any less hate involved if I kill someone because I hate them for stealing my girlfriend, or if I hate them because they're black. Punish based on the crime with an understanding of the motivation; don't punish based on the motivation. Assault is assault. Murder is murder.

Why do we specify race and sexuality minorities? What I think, is that it's a decision that's geared more towards engineering behavior than impartial justice. If the punishments are worse for crimes against those people, then somehow people will be less likely to commit those crimes. I do think that it conveys the idea that those minorities are entitled to more protection: commit a crime against one, and you face far, far greater retribution than against another. I'm sure that isn't the driving mentality behind the laws, but it sure seems to further that idea to me.

I don't agree with that.

PS: I'll push this one even further, just to be controversial. I don't think there should be a distinction if a crime is committed against a child instead of an adult. It's the same thing: social engineering through law. We prefer it if violence is committed against an adult, because we rationalize it by saying that the adult can fight back. But objectively, why does this make the crime any better?

Edited, Oct 1st 2010 7:26pm by Eske

Hypothetical example is hypothetical.

And isn't any violent crime promoting hate?

Edited, Oct 1st 2010 7:28pm by Eske

Why does it matter whether it's generalized or specific? What difference does that make, objectively speaking?

You know, if I were somebody else, reading this thread, I'd attack my argument by saying that all laws are social engineering.

Hmm...is that always true? I thought that to prove a hate crime, you only need prove that the person's race or sexuality was a deciding factor in the decision to commit the crime. I don't think that you have to prove an intent to cause fear among others.

I think we all need to go watch South Park season 4, ep 1, "Cartman's Silly Hate Crime" which features an enlightening presentation by the boys, entitled "Hate Crimes: A Moral Hypocrisy".

Well

But it does. It's like racism. It's simply not ok to kill someone because they're African American. To the same token, it's not ok to kill someone because they are gay.

I hate to break up the chance of us actually agreeing, but I have to disagree on this point.... :(

Hate works both ways, so a "hate crime", as understood, would theoretically apply to everyone. The issue that you see, and are probably referencing to, is that it is usually geared towards minorities and ignored towards the majority.