« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next »

This thread is locked

This still goes on?Follow

#177 Oct 04 2010 at 4:53 PM Rating: Good

__DEL__1604276369236

Sage

2,346 posts

Almalieque wrote:

Hyolith wrote:

ALmalieque the who? wrote:

I thought I made that clear with the "Sunday crime" example. There is no reason to label crimes done on Sunday as a "Sunday crime" because it gives off the perception that somehow Sunday crimes are different than crimes done on any other day of the week, when in fact, it's the same crime.

You can sit there and claim there is no reason to. Some people might believe you, other people won't. The simple fact of the matter is that is it against the law no matter how you want to look at. In a society where slavery was once allowed they are trying to get the point across that hatred and prejudice against other races and such will not be tolerated.

And as some people have stated there is probably a higher chance of a repeat offender when it comes to hate crimes. If they have a more severe punishment it will put them away longer, preventing some needless killing to a certain group.

The FBI quote from you wrote:

Defining a Hate Crime
Photograph of firefighter on smoking roof. A hate crime is a traditional offense like murder, arson, or vandalism with an added element of bias. For the purposes of collecting statistics, Congress has defined a hate crime as a "criminal offense against a person or property motivated in whole or in part by an offender's bias against a race, religion, disability, ethnic origin or sexual orientation." Hate itself is not a crimeâ€”and the FBI is mindful of protecting freedom of speech and other civil liberties.

Seriously, take a second to read, especially your own quote. Hate is not against the law, the distinction is done for statistical purposes. So, unless you're gathering statistics, there is no need to make that distinction. By doing so, you're implying that there is some sort of an hierarchy.

You should take a second to read also. I never said it was against the law to hate someone. Hence what we are talking about being a hate CRIME. We are talking about a crime here, out of hatred or prejudice, get it? I sure hope so, I don't know if I can make it any more clear what I'm talking about, since the subject for the past 4 pages has been about crimes. Not simply hating someone.

Maybe not all states have a specific sentence if a crime is distinguished as a hate crime but in this particular case in New Jersey there is a sentence that can be tacked on if it is indeed determined as a hate crime.

I wonder if that will make it more clear.

#178 Oct 04 2010 at 5:40 PM Rating: Default

The All Knowing

10,265 posts

Hyolith wrote:

Almalieque The Awesome wrote:

Hyolith wrote:

ALmalieque the who? wrote:

I thought I made that clear with the "Sunday crime" example. There is no reason to label crimes done on Sunday as a "Sunday crime" because it gives off the perception that somehow Sunday crimes are different than crimes done on any other day of the week, when in fact, it's the same crime.

You can sit there and claim there is no reason to. Some people might believe you, other people won't. The simple fact of the matter is that is it against the law no matter how you want to look at. In a society where slavery was once allowed they are trying to get the point across that hatred and prejudice against other races and such will not be tolerated.

And as some people have stated there is probably a higher chance of a repeat offender when it comes to hate crimes. If they have a more severe punishment it will put them away longer, preventing some needless killing to a certain group.

The FBI quote from you wrote:

Defining a Hate Crime
Photograph of firefighter on smoking roof. A hate crime is a traditional offense like murder, arson, or vandalism with an added element of bias. For the purposes of collecting statistics, Congress has defined a hate crime as a "criminal offense against a person or property motivated in whole or in part by an offender's bias against a race, religion, disability, ethnic origin or sexual orientation." Hate itself is not a crimeâ€”and the FBI is mindful of protecting freedom of speech and other civil liberties.

Seriously, take a second to read, especially your own quote. Hate is not against the law, the distinction is done for statistical purposes. So, unless you're gathering statistics, there is no need to make that distinction. By doing so, you're implying that there is some sort of an hierarchy.

You should take a second to read also. I never said it was against the law to hate someone. Hence what we are talking about being a hate CRIME. We are talking about a crime here, out of hatred or prejudice, get it? I sure hope so, I don't know if I can make it any more clear what I'm talking about, since the subject for the past 4 pages has been about crimes. Not simply hating someone.

Maybe not all states have a specific sentence if a crime is distinguished as a hate crime but in this particular case in New Jersey there is a sentence that can be tacked on if it is indeed determined as a hate crime.

I wonder if that will make it more clear.

Trust me I got it, people like to make unnecessary labels for crimes... got it...

#179 Oct 04 2010 at 5:41 PM Rating: Good

__DEL__1709511392366

Sage

6,471 posts

Timelordwho wrote:

Honestly, the best way to do this would change the "hate crime" notation to a "terrorism" notation. If the goal of the crime was not the resultant of the crime but rather to spread fear amongst a group or groups of people, we should call it what it is. Terrorism. This would also give law enforcement much more flexibility in using it as a tool, with the groups no longer needing to be connected by some sort of identity cluster, the statutes could be expanded to include things such as a drug dealer who shoots people to keep others in the neighborhood from calling the police, as well as the usual hate crime definitions. Which I think would be ultimately a more useful legal tool.

Edited, Oct 4th 2010 6:50pm by Timelordwho

Yeah, actually before I made my post I did a quick search to see if I could find the language that they use for terrorism sentences. Found it was a little bit more difficult to google than I had expected.

I think what you said is a totally legitimate way of handling the crimes. I'd vastly prefer it if such a system were implemented as a replacement for hate crimes.

#180 Oct 04 2010 at 6:27 PM Rating: Excellent

View User Forum

ZAM Administrator

10,601 posts

Alma, you stated that there was no point for there to be a hate crime distinction. If you want to instead change it to how the current hate crime law is implemented, then there isn't a discussion. Let me know when you want to go back to discussing the merits of hate crime laws.

Edited, Oct 4th 2010 7:39pm by Xsarus

____________________________

01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ

#181 Oct 04 2010 at 6:34 PM Rating: Default

The All Knowing

10,265 posts

Sir Xsarus wrote:

Alma, you stated that there was no point for there to be a hate crime distinction. If you want to instead change it to how the current hate crime law is implemented, then there isn't a discussion. Let me know when you want to go back to discussing the merits of hate crime laws.

So, are you going to answer the question or are you going to ignore it like you did my other questions?

#182 Oct 04 2010 at 6:40 PM Rating: Excellent

View User Forum

ZAM Administrator

10,601 posts

what question? I haven't ignored any of your questions.

Also you misread that quote. Hate crime laws aren't for statistical purposes. The statistics section is part of the next sentence, which deals with understanding how the hate crimes have been used. Congress wants to gather statistics about hate crimes, and so has defined it very specifically. Hate crime laws however are not about statistics.

Quote:

the distinction is done for statistical purposes.

false, you don't understand the quote.

Edited, Oct 4th 2010 7:42pm by Xsarus

____________________________

01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ

#183 Oct 04 2010 at 6:46 PM Rating: Excellent

View User Forum

ZAM Administrator

10,601 posts

Quote:

Do you or do you not agree with the FBI addition that Hyolith provided? Yes or No? If you do, then there is no need for further discussion. The FBI stated in that definition that a hate crime is a regular crime with hatred being the motive and that distinction is only made for statistical purposes only.

Is this the questions you were referring to? If so, sorry, I missed it. Um, I agree that this is how the FBI views hate crimes, but the FBI never stated that the distinction is only made for statistical purposes.

In my opinion for something to be a hate crime the hate has to be the overwhelming motivator. It might not always be implemented this way, but we're not really discussing specific implementations.

____________________________

01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ

#184 Oct 04 2010 at 7:11 PM Rating: Excellent

View User Forum

Will swallow your soul

29,360 posts

Jophiel wrote:

You guys sure know how to **** up a mediocre thread.

What Joph said.

____________________________

In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#185 Oct 04 2010 at 7:31 PM Rating: Good

View User Forum

Sage

4,158 posts

I can see why Alma is in the Military.

Its members have never had a reputation for critically thinking things through.

____________________________

"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.

#186 Oct 04 2010 at 7:33 PM Rating: Default

The All Knowing

10,265 posts

Sir Xsarus wrote:

what question? I haven't ignored any of your questions.

Also you misread that quote. Hate crime laws aren't for statistical purposes. The statistics section is part of the next sentence, which deals with understanding how the hate crimes have been used. Congress wants to gather statistics about hate crimes, and so has defined it very specifically. Hate crime laws however are not about statistics.

Quote:

the distinction is done for statistical purposes.

false, you don't understand the quote.

Edited, Oct 4th 2010 7:42pm by Xsarus

Sir X wrote:

Is this the questions you were referring to? If so, sorry, I missed it. Um, I agree that this is how the FBI views hate crimes, but the FBI never stated that the distinction is only made for statistical purposes.

In my opinion for something to be a hate crime the hate has to be the overwhelming motivator. It might not always be implemented this way, but we're not really discussing specific implementations.

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree, I don't see how you can gather your interpretation from that quote when the FBI clearly said it was for statistical purposes. You can say that they meant something else, but with their following sentence being that hate isn't illegal and that they respect peoples right to a free speech, it supports that claim that it's for statistical purposes.

This goes back to the discussion of what me and Eske had. There is a difference between the theoretical usage and the practical usage. By definition, it's for statistical purposes only, but in reality, it isn't practiced that way. That is the entire point, it shouldn't be practiced that way.

P.S. You did indeed ignore questions. You may have overlooked this question, but you clearly ignored our discussion in the prop 8 thread.

#187 Oct 04 2010 at 7:40 PM Rating: Decent

Prodigal Son

20,643 posts

Methinks alma's just been post-farming these past few threads.

____________________________

publiusvarus wrote:

we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.

#188 Oct 04 2010 at 7:53 PM Rating: Excellent

View User Forum

ZAM Administrator

10,601 posts

The quote from the FBI said no such thing.

Quote:

For the purposes of collecting statistics, Congress has defined a hate crime as a "criminal offense against a person or property motivated in whole or in part by an offender's bias against a race, religion, disability, ethnic origin or sexual orientation."

You are misreading this. They didn't create hate crimes to gather statistics. The statement is saying that congress has defined hate crimes as so and so. When you collect statistics, use this definition. It's not saying the definition is created to collect statistics.

Edited, Oct 4th 2010 9:05pm by Xsarus

____________________________

01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ

#189 Oct 04 2010 at 8:03 PM Rating: Good

__DEL__1618186764728

Sage

5,684 posts

Jophiel wrote:

You guys sure know how to mediocre up a **** thread.

#190 Oct 04 2010 at 8:10 PM Rating: Good

__DEL__1604276369236

Sage

2,346 posts

This isn't the Prop 8 thread Alma so you can stop bringing that **** up.

As others have quoted, stop ******* up this thread.

#191 Oct 04 2010 at 8:20 PM Rating: Good

__DEL__1625444348715

Sage

3,362 posts

Hyolith wrote:

THIS ISN'T THE PROP 8 THREAD ALMA SO YOU CAN STOP BRINGING THAT **** UP.

As others have quoted, stop ******* up this thread.

Once again, Alma, the important part is bolded, underlined, and capitalized. Read it carefully and let me know when you understand.

#192 Oct 05 2010 at 5:47 AM Rating: Default

The All Knowing

10,265 posts

Sir Xsarus wrote:

The quote from the FBI said no such thing.

Quote:

For the purposes of collecting statistics, Congress has defined a hate crime as a "criminal offense against a person or property motivated in whole or in part by an offender's bias against a race, religion, disability, ethnic origin or sexual orientation."

You are misreading this. They didn't create hate crimes to gather statistics. The statement is saying that congress has defined hate crimes as so and so. When you collect statistics, use this definition. It's not saying the definition is created to collect statistics.

Edited, Oct 4th 2010 9:05pm by Xsarus

I'm not the one misreading the quote. If you focused on that one sentence, then you can make that argument, but when placed in context, you'll notice the supporting sentences. I'll quote again.

"Defining a Hate Crime
A hate crime is a traditional offense like murder, arson, or vandalism with an added element of bias. ... Hate itself is not a crimeâ€”and the FBI is mindful of protecting freedom of speech and other civil liberties."

The first part defines it as a traditional crime with the only exception being hate. Then it follows up to say that hate itself is not a crime. If a hate crime is the same as any other crime with the only exception of the hate and the hate itself isn't a crime and the government is mindful of protecting the freedom of speech, how are the two crimes different?

They aren't, so it is indeed created for statistical purposes. Removing the words "for statistical purposes only" would not change the definition at all, that would hold true for any crime. So, what is the point of saying "for statistical purposes only" unless you purposely created it for statistics? The definition alone is sufficient for statistics. You can argue otherwise, but that's what the quote says.

#193 Oct 05 2010 at 6:18 AM Rating: Excellent

View User Forum

ZAM Administrator

10,601 posts

Nope, but enjoy your little delusion.

____________________________

01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ

#194 Oct 05 2010 at 8:39 AM Rating: Good

__DEL__1649636418093

View User Forum

Sage

30,646 posts

Wait... is Alma saying that hate crimes were legislated for the sole purpose of collecting statistics?

#195 Oct 05 2010 at 6:59 PM Rating: Decent

Edited by bsphil

21,739 posts

Belkira the Tulip wrote:

Wait... is Alma saying that hate crimes were legislated for the sole purpose of collecting statistics?

At least that's all the FBI cares about, which in turn is all that matters overall?

____________________________

His Excellency Aethien wrote:

Almalieque wrote:

If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.

Take the hint guys, please take the hint.

gbaji wrote:

I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.

#196 Oct 05 2010 at 7:07 PM Rating: Default

The All Knowing

10,265 posts

paulsol wrote:

I can see why Alma is in the Military.

Its members have never had a reputation for critically thinking things through.

Lol... your ignorance of the military is astonishing. The U.S. military uses more critical thinking probably than any other occupation world wide.

Sir X wrote:

Nope, but enjoy your little delusion.

Wait a minute.. So the FBI states that a hate crime is no different than any other crime for the exception of the hatred......and that hatred is not a crime and is protected under the freedom of speech.... and you somehow still believe that they created an entire hierarchical crime based off of one factor that is not only perfectly legal but protected under the constitution to give extra penalization to?!?!?! And that makes sense how? ......And I'm the delusional one? Dude get real.. just bail out like you did in the prop 8 thread and we can pretend like this conversation never took place, like in the prop 8 thread.

#197 Oct 05 2010 at 7:11 PM Rating: Good

Uglysasquatch

Soulless Internet Tiger

35,474 posts

Quote:

Lol... your ignorance of the military is astonishing. The U.S. military uses more critical thinking probably than any other occupation world wide.

Possibly. Just not at your pay grade.

____________________________

Donate. One day it could be your family.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#198 Oct 05 2010 at 7:11 PM Rating: Decent

-REDACTED-

Scholar

1,150 posts

Almalieque wrote:

paulsol wrote:

I can see why Alma is in the Military.

Its members have never had a reputation for critically thinking things through.

Lol... your ignorance of the military is astonishing. The U.S. military uses more critical thinking probably than any other occupation world wide.

Sir X wrote:

Nope, but enjoy your little delusion.

Wait a minute.. So the FBI states that a hate crime is no different than any other crime for the exception of the hatred......and that hatred is not a crime and is protected under the freedom of speech.... and you somehow still believe that they created an entire hierarchical crime based off of one factor that is not only perfectly legal but protected under the constitution to give extra penalization to?!?!?! And that makes sense how? ......And I'm the delusional one? Dude get real.. just bail out like you did in the prop 8 thread and we can pretend like this conversation never took place, like in the prop 8 thread.

Huh?

Ah well. Laws aren't statistical tools.

#199 Oct 05 2010 at 7:14 PM Rating: Good

View User Forum

Sage

4,158 posts

Almalieque wrote:

Lol... your ignorance of the military is astonishing. The U.S. military uses more critical thinking probably than any other occupation world wide.

Well they need to get some better quality people doing the thinking then because the results of all that critical brainstorming going on has been pretty bloody woeful for some time now.

Or havn't you noticed?

Edited, Oct 6th 2010 1:15am by paulsol

____________________________

"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.

#200 Oct 05 2010 at 7:23 PM Rating: Decent

The All Knowing

10,265 posts

Uglysasquatch wrote:

Quote:

Lol... your ignorance of the military is astonishing. The U.S. military uses more critical thinking probably than any other occupation world wide.

Possibly. Just not at your pay grade.

You obviously have no idea what a Battle Captain is..... Ask a person who's been one if they agree with you.

Paul wrote:

Well they need to get some better quality people doing the thinking then because the results of all that critical brainstorming going on has been pretty bloody woeful for some time now.

Or havn't you noticed?

No, you're confusing politics with the military..

#201 Oct 05 2010 at 7:25 PM Rating: Good

__DEL__1625444348715

Sage

3,362 posts

I bet Alma can't go one day without informing everyone that he's important because he's in the military. Look, bud, if you're going to stroke yourself, try not to be a little less public with it.

« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next »

This thread is locked

You cannot post in a locked topic!

Recent Visitors: 283 All times are in CST

Anonymous Guests (283)

© 2024 Fanbyte LLC