Hate Crimes, Hate Speech

[King Rat]

I just read an article where a Hispanic gangmember killed a black gangmember. It was ruled a hate crime.

Why do we have "hate crimes" and "hate speech"?

Should there be an extra penalty for murdering someone you hate verses someone you are robbing? If a hispanic murders a black because he hates blacks should he spend more time in prison than a hispanic who kills a black because he wants his shoes? Should a normal guy who kills a homosexual be more guilty than had he killed another normal guy? Or a woman?

Is is more legal for a black to kill a black or a white to kill a white than if they kill outside their race? Is it possible for the killing of a white heterosexual Christian male to qualify as a hate crime?

And what exactly is "hate speech"? Isn't it odd that liberals, those same people who invented the ACLU, also invented a method to outlaw speech they don't agree with?

On my TF toolbar, in the Google search field, I typed "define: hate speech" and it returned:

type of speech which is used to deliberately offend an individual; or racial, ethnic, religious or other group. Such speech generally seeks to condemn or dehumanize the individual or group; or express anger, hatred, violence or contempt toward them.

Hate speech is a controversial term for speech intended to degrade, intimidate, or incite violence or prejudicial action against someone based on their race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, or disability. The term covers written as well as oral communication.


Pretty broad, isn't it? Doesn't it fly in the face of the 1st amendment? Shouldn't the ACLU oppose it? Why don't they?

By its definition, if you or I come on this forum and advocate profiling young muslim men getting on airplanes then we have committed a "hate crime" because such an utterance is "hate speech". Be careful before you express a desire to deport Mexicans who enter our country illegally because such an expression fits the definition of "hate speech". You could go to prison.

For example, it is legal for a white man to tell a black man, "I hate you." Yet it is illegal for that same white man to tell that same black man, "I hate you because you are black." Why? Why isn't it just as illegal to tell someone you hate them because they are bald, or short, or tall, or democrat or republican?

Why are we letting liberals destroy the fabric of our nation?

Most importantly, will YOU help the democrats, a party more liberal now than ever in its history, regain control of congress this fall?

[zipzam]

"Why isn't it just as illegal to tell someone you hate them because they are bald, or short, or tall, or democrat or republican?"

good point on the bald, short, and tall... but people have a choice to be repub or dem.

also, is it hate speech if a black tells a white "i hate you b/c you're white"? surely it isn't a double standard... just wondering.

fwiw, i think it's pretty stupid. if i kill someone, i should serve the right amount of time for the murder (no matter what color the victim was).

while i think it shouldn't be against the law for me to say "i hate you because you're short, black, white, bald, mexican whatever"... i'd understand if i got my arse kicked after making such an idiotic comment to someone.

on a side note... i was eating chinese food last night. i was talking with the g/f about "fluctuations". i guess the chinese lady didn't understand the conversation since she stormed over and said "fluc you white guys too!".

[rutrow]

cpurdon said:

Pretty broad, isn't it? Doesn't it fly in the face of the 1st amendment? Shouldn't the ACLU oppose it? Why don't they?


Why are we letting liberals destroy the fabric of our nation?

Most importantly, will YOU help the democrats, a party more liberal now than ever in its history, regain control of congress this fall?

Don't forget the Patriot Act is being touted as the law of the land now. The constitution is taking a back seat. Nobody, not even Congress knows what is in the entire Patriot Act bill. They didn't even read the bill when they passed it. I have read that it was written during the Clinton Administration, forced upon us by the Bush Administration. I am of the opinion that there is no liberal/conservative in our government. This is only fabricated to keep the people polarized and not united. As long as they manipulate the media to talk about issues like who killed Jon Benet, they can divert american's attention from the real issues facing us...like the loss of our freedoms guaranteed to us by the Constitution.

[King Rat]

zipzam said:

"
good point on the bald, short, and tall... but people have a choice to be repub or dem.

!".

As they do when it comes to sleeping with men verses women.

[zipzam]

cpurdon said:

zipzam said:

"
good point on the bald, short, and tall... but people have a choice to be repub or dem.

!".

As they do when it comes to sleeping with men verses women.

very true KR.

[King Rat]

It is a pretty ingenious way the liberals have devised to suppress opposing viewpoints, though, isn't it? Anyone who disagrees with them is simply dismissed as "a hater" or "uneducated" or "unenlightened". That way they don't have to debate the issue because to oppose them is to prove your own ignorance and/or racism. For instance, a person can't simply think homosexuallity is wrong - they must HATE or FEAR homosexuals. And when they have the weight of the major media outlets in lockstep with them it browbeats an entire population into silence. After all, who wants to speak out and be immediately and universally laughed at for his/her ignorance?

But I think it's high time we stop letting people who advocate the wholesale slaughter of babies get away with labeling us as "hateful" or "ignorant". Don't you?

[zipzam]

cpurdon said:

But I think it's high time we stop letting people who advocate the wholesale slaughter of babies get away with labeling us as "hateful" or "ignorant". Don't you?

abortion.. ugh.

the biggest arguement i hate is "you're trying to control my body!"

no, that's not it at all. i have concern for the baby INSIDE the body.

i guess that means i "hate" the mother... dunno.


and on homosexuals... too much is made of that on both sides imo. if people wanna be gay, whoopdefreakindo. i have no problem with two men (or women) live together, marry, etc. it seems some people are so focused against gays that they are scared they'll "catch gay" or something.
on the flipside, gay supporters want gays to be treated like a minority. "they're oppressed, etc".
heck, i'm an ole miss fan. i know what it's like to be oppressed... still, it's by choice.

i can realize gays are possibly "wired" to be gay to a point. still, it's a choice.

[missfairy]

I have a friend whose grandparents told her long ago not to hang out at Starting Over because she'd "catch the gay". They were dead-serious too.

I disagree with your assertment that it is a choice. I have many gay/lesbian friends. The large percentage of them ALWAYS knew. Is being straight a choice? Because it would sure be the easier one, especially in the south. I know a few that have tried to just not pursue relationships or even try straight ones...it never works for long. You can't supress your very nature.

So anyway, I guess my point is you can have your opinion on whether it's wrong or right or whatever, but the bottom line is that if it were a choice, I don't think very many people would CHOOSE to be gay. It just doesn't make sense.

~April

[zipzam]

missfairy said:

I disagree with your assertment that it is a choice. I have many gay/lesbian friends. The large percentage of them ALWAYS knew. Is being straight a choice? Because it would sure be the easier one, especially in the south. I know a few that have tried to just not pursue relationships or even try straight ones...it never works for long. You can't supress your very nature.

So anyway, I guess my point is you can have your opinion on whether it's wrong or right or whatever, but the bottom line is that if it were a choice, I don't think very many people would CHOOSE to be gay. It just doesn't make sense.

~April

at least we agree you can't "catch gay" lol.

look, i do believe gay men are very likely born with an attraction for men. just like i can have a strong like for the taste of corn... you may think corn is the nastiest thing you've ever tasted.
still, i have a choice to eat/not eat corn... you have a choice to eat/not eat corn.

heck, some people are born with a stronger chance of being addicted to smoking (or i believe so). still, anyone can stop smoking... some much easier than others.

i really don't have a problem with gay marriage or anything of that nature. i DO have a problem with SOME gays wanting to be treated as a "minority".
if we're gonna give "minority status" to gays... why not give it to smokers? alcoholics? corn on the cob haters? etc.

[King Rat]

My main problem is with the way the liberals attempt to silence any opposing viewpoint. I don't care if someone wants to be gay but I do care when they criminalize another's person's right to think being gay is immoral. And I have a problem with the way they try to indoctrinate our children to accept the gay lifestyle as normal. It isn't normal. It will never be normal and they have no right to impose those views onto my child in school or in cartoons or through children's books.

[granny2young]

well said Rat.

[rutrow]

zipzam said:

cpurdon said:

the biggest arguement i hate is "you're trying to control my body!"

no, that's not it at all. i have concern for the baby INSIDE the body.

Looks like women who say that don't really have control over their own bodies.

[zipzam]

rutrow said:

zipzam said:

cpurdon said:

the biggest arguement i hate is "you're trying to control my body!"

no, that's not it at all. i have concern for the baby INSIDE the body.

Looks like women who say that don't really have control over their own bodies.

let's be fair rutrow... women who are raped DON'T have control over their bodies (at that time).
even in rape cases... it's hard for me to justify killing a baby.

[rutrow]

zipzam said:

rutrow said:

zipzam said:

Looks like women who say that don't really have control over their own bodies.

let's be fair rutrow... women who are raped DON'T have control over their bodies (at that time).
even in rape cases... it's hard for me to justify killing a baby.

I can agree with that zip. I wasn't thinking about those poor women who have gone through that kind of terror. MY BAD.
However, for the rest, there were over 40,000,000,000 abortions performed since the law allowed it. I dare say that there were not 40,000,000,000 rapes and that most of these women were not in control of their bodies to allow this to happen? I know women who had abortions just because they did not want to hamper their life with a baby, or even carrying the baby for 9 months, or to give birth. If control is what they call this, then control is only for them to cover their mistake and to get on living their selfish life. And yet I recognise that there are still a few more exceptions to this train of thought.

[zipzam]

rutrow said:

zipzam said:

rutrow said:

let's be fair rutrow... women who are raped DON'T have control over their bodies (at that time).
even in rape cases... it's hard for me to justify killing a baby.

I can agree with that zip. I wasn't thinking about those poor women who have gone through that kind of terror. MY BAD.
However, for the rest, there were over 40,000,000,000 abortions performed since the law allowed it. I dare say that there were not 40,000,000,000 rapes and that most of these women were not in control of their bodies to allow this to happen? I know women who had abortions just because they did not want to hamper their life with a baby, or even carrying the baby for 9 months, or to give birth. If control is what they call this, then control is only for them to cover their mistake and to get on living their selfish life. And yet I recognise that there are still a few more exceptions to this train of thought.

no doubt.. rape is a SMALL part of the abortion arguement, but it unfortionately does exist.

more unfortionately, too many abortions happen b/c of "conveinence".