Nate, the lynching of a black man in America has a specific history, as an act of terror - by definition, an act designed to harm an entire people, not just the instant victim. This is precisely why an anonymous killing of a holdup victim in an alley is not the same as the ordered killing by a neo-nazi of a black coach in a predominantly black neighborhood of Chicago. Both are evil, and both are killings. One is terror.
Oh I'm aware of the history of the mistreatment of blacks (not as much as you are), but I'm trying to figure out which mindset exactly I'm supposed to use. Everyone says, and I agree when they say this, to treat all colors equal and to judge not by the color of their skin but by the individual themselves. Assuming we're all equal, shouldn't we "clean the slate" of historical events that happened to race against race? Otherwise we'll always be stuck in the racist mindset upon seeing anyone of a different color. I'm sure for every race and color there was another horrible thing done to them by another race and color. But in America, why do we forget all the other instances? Asians that worked the railroads, germans that killed the Jews, natives the colonials pushed off the land, etc. There's too much history out there for us all to remember each instance, and if we're to remember one instance we should remember them all (to be equal right?). So why not just forget it all and say, "you're black, I'm white - who cares, we're American!" No one is tied down by misgivings of their ancestors. If so then I'm screwed, cause I'm almost 100% German.
I did not say "just". I said its still murder. In other words, its still wrong. Just like the present subject, it is a still wrong. Worse? What's worse than murder? How the murder was committed? What it was committed? Either way, its still "murder".
The meaning of the term "equality" seem to be getting skewed by political correctness these days. Simple fact.
Nate - please revisit the logic behind the same notion, when we have laws on the books that make the murder of a cop "different" than the murder of a civilian. Race-hate crimes are about terror - about inducing terror among an entire swath of people, not just ending the life of one person. Killing a cop is classed differently, as the logic goes, because to kill a cop is to induce greater harm on society than killing a civilian. And there are hundreds of comparable examples, throughout the law. This is the logic behind the laws. One must, to be logically consistent, get rid of ALL such laws that distinguish different murders by their greater or lesser harm to others (beyond the instant victim), or understand and accept the logic behind hate crimes laws. Mia would then treat a torture/murder the same as a murder, then, and abolish all laws that distinguish the two, I'm presuming? While we're at it, he'd abolish the laws that make the killing of a cop a breed apart from the killing of a civilian? Rob never answered this on "the other thread," but the challenge remains to anyone contesting the logic of hates crimes laws: can you reasonably argue against them, while arguing for other laws that distinguish various murders for their greater or lesser harm? Folks deride "political correctness" as a kind of torture of commonsense, towards some agenda. Quite honestly, this is what I see, when I see folks attempt to argue there isn't a difference between an anonymous murder in an alleyway holdup gone wrong, and the dragging death of a black man, the public murder by a white supremacist of a well-known and loved black coach, the targeted murder of a Jewish judge's family by another white supremacist (same "World Church of the Creator"), the crucifixion of a gay man, crimes against Muslims following 9/11, and countless others. Torture of commonsense, indeed.
It's an undeniable fact. It's pretty sad when people have to make a competition out of this. This is just another indicator of the sad social climate brought on by people on the left that do not believe in egalitarianism in moral matters. Its kinda contrary to their other Marxist beliefs like spreading the wealth around. They'll strive to create material equality, but when it comes to legal egalitarianism, it would appear the court of public opinion wins that fight. Racial equality is a form of egalitarianism btw. It refers to the equal treatment toward people of "different" races, not just one. I cannot understand why a group that promotes egalitarianism philosophies would be so hell bent on making a right turn on those beliefs when it concerns a "white women". That's not only hypocritical, but a form of reverse racism, if not simply racist in and of itself.
Special treatment for Obama much? A lot of Democrats came out of the woodwork ridiculing the people that hung an Obama effigy from a college campus tree (an obvious joke and perhaps even a political statement) for hate crimes just a couple of months ago. Is this not a form of racism when race comes into play and people are treated differently?
Try this one on for size. Let's say there was a tape of John McCain socializing with Neo Nazis. Would that receive more attention than Obama hanging with his PLO peeps?
PHP, please. Let's revisit that thread, yet again, since I was "one of those people," and so were you. "Obvious joke." You, in fact, said this, then: "Sign of hate," in the other thread, but a "joke," now? Again, PHP, please - this is simply not being honest, in my opinion, and this isn't your way. Let's summarize: 1. I said it on that thread: and I've said it here: 2. Hate crimes do not go to "race," per se, any more than they go to gender, religion, sexual orientation, etc. They go to crimes that by their intrinsic nature are designed to incite terror among an entire population, reaching far beyond the evil of the crime itself. As the Supreme Court stated, in its reasoning for ruling in the affirmative for the existence of hates crimes laws: And I'm in agreement. 3. Finally, I've yet to see someone, outside of Grim (who rejects the notion of hate crimes, who also rejects the notion of distinguishing homicides among a host of other criteria), call for the abolition of ANY law that distinguishes murders for their ancillary, harmful effects, and I call that hypocritical. To say one would call the torture and dragging death of a black man by neo-nazis as "nothing more than simple murder," while nodding one's head in agreement with laws on the books, for instance, that make the killing of a police officer, hell, the President him or herself, as a "special class" of murder is hypocritical; I can think of no other way to describe it. One can't have it both ways - one either supports the abolition of all laws that distinguish murders for their greater import and harm to society generally, or at one at least sees the logical consistency of hates crimes law with the same philosophical house as other laws designed to reach further in their greater protections, than the evil of the instant crime itself. Or, let's say that this is verbatim drawn from what McCain already tried: Of course, there is that pesky "relationship," well, D'oh! Or, his board membership on an organization known for funding known former-nazis and right-wing death squads: D'oh!
Northpoint, I understand your argument but I think I have to agree with Nate. There has been an incredible amount of horrible things done to entire populations throughout history. At some point we have to clear the slate and say everyone is equal. My sticking point with the hate crime law is that the greater harm to society is *presumptive*. Unlike the murder of a police officer in which the greater harm to society is apparent.
Even posts where the shadow of the print weighs 6 pounds can't make "equal" mean something different. Words have meaning. If all races are equal in the eyes of the law, then the laws concerning them should reflect that by being the same. Laws should not differ depending on skin color.
I respect and understand the position, Damian. But I can't agree, and here's why. To shoot and kill that officer is to kill that officer. It is also, so the "special class" law goes, to endanger society by the reduction of one whose job it is to protect society, by definition. The greater harm is that society is adversely affected. To lynch a black man, and hang a racialist threat on that black man's body, is to kill that black man. It is also to level specific terror in the hearts of black people, everywhere - he was killed, and it was made known he was killed, because he was black. It is to adversely affect their sense of safety, security, and freedom to enjoy what others enjoy, namely, the right to live their life in peace, as any other citizen, of any other ethnicity. The greater harm is that it isn't just the victim who is harmed, but all black people, living under the cloud of such threat. Extend this out, now, to other instances of hate, by objective criteria - a person's race, gender, sexual orientation, and so forth. I'd maintain there is a logic to this, and it goes to what a hate crime actually does. Again, it isn't about race, per se, but terror. And terror isn't simple murder. @ Rob: Rob once again, as always, tries to diminish my argument by anything other than the argument itself. He has yet to address the inconsistency in approving of some laws that distinguish murder by "type" because of what they portend for society, beyond the crime itself - while eschewing an understanding of hate crimes laws. He prefers to say "I talk in bloated posts." Let me reiterate that I can respect a principled position, as Grim stated, and as Damian stated, now. I cannot respect an unprincipled position made under snide cover of ad hominem.
Somebody doesnt know the difference between an ad hominem attack and just simply laughing at the fact that he thinks long attempts to massage a point changes the facts. If I was going to make an ad hominem attack I'd have pointed out that your constant attempts to tell us how intelligent you are must be necessitated by the fact that your posts seldom provide alternative evidence of same. Now wandering BACK to the topic from which you varied: The word "equal" disallows different treatment depending on skin color. Period. If you tell us the Supreme Court said differently, I'll point out they once allowed slavery too. They once prohibited abortion. They once allowed "separate but equal" facilities for blacks. They've gotten it wrong before, and they have now done so again by failing to shoot down laws that treat people differently depending on skin color. That isnt in keeping with the principle of equal treatment under the law. Those who think otherwise need to look up "equal". All else is PC bullshit.
LOL - that's pathetic. Rob - you continually refer to my "self-aggrandisement," and a host of other nasties you've got respecting my person. You ever consider it's silly, post after post, over addressing a point? He's apparently having trouble with the word "agree," as in, in the Court's reasoning, I agree with the reasoning. I also disagreed with the reasoning used in, say, Plessy v. Ferguson. As Rob knows, but can't seem to fully understand, since we've already discussed this. It's possible to agree with some things, and disagree with others. Which is also my point - an inflexible mindset rarely considers such "subtle" possibilities.
Ironically the very idea of equal is, a Marxist idea. Our own Declaration of Independence implies a moral and legal egalitarianism with the words "All men are created equal". Why those on the left that openly embrace Marxist ideology such as spreading wealth around, some how reject the same ideology that promotes egalitarianism us mind numbing to say the least. What's even more disturbing as it concerns this topic is the fact that egalitarianism is the main ingredient in modern civil rights policy.
Exactly. Double standards FTW. Only white hetro men are racists, everyone else is just misunderstood.
And white trash well dressed ladies from Wasilla That's pretty much the point here. But this type of flip flopping on ideologies and redefining of meanings is at the root of the problem.
I'm gonna have to live with the fact that my posts are considered less than respectable by the guy that said my opinions "arent worth a pile of dogshit". What a loss. If he quits posturing maybe he'll explain how equal treatment under the law is achieved by treating people of one race differently than another. Should be fun to watch.
I certainly agree that there is logic to the argument. Understand though that I am not a minority, so I have some difficulty believing in the assumptive far reaching effect of a hate crime. If I reverse the situation (just reverse the races used in your dragging death example), I know it wouldn't cause *me* any terror. Well, unless it was done to me. The Supreme Court ruling you posted uses the intent of the crime as justification for the creation of hate crime laws. Crimes already have a range of punishments assigned to them. I think the intent could be used to increase sentencing within the pre-established range of punishment, but should not be used as the basis for the creation of a separate class of crime. If actual greater harm could be shown, rather than presumed, I might be more willing to support hate crime legislation. Finally, if the heart of the issue is terror, then hate crime laws are redundant. While I don't know the specifics, I'm fairly sure we already have laws on the books addressing terrorism. As such, I would rather have someone accused of a hate crime tried under current terrorism laws than to add yet more laws to the books that address the same issue.
Well, geez, Marine, such righteous indignation. Isn't it and I don't know. Maybe But then, I'm sorry. Maybe it all comes down to Regardless, Anyway, Damian, I'll return later - good thoughts, and I'd like to offer a considered reply.