I call it snide to ascribe everything I've argued to simply going blue in the face, Rob. I call it snide to imply I'm into a kind of reverse racism, when I have very clearly provided a host of reasons supporting the legal theory the Supreme Court has embraced, and it doesn't go to race, but to terror. I call it snide to say it all comes down to me thinking it "neato," when as I've said, I've provided a goodly amount of material and time, and you've dealt with none of it in response. This seems so commonsensical to me, but apparently not. A 20 second search yielded this. The Supreme Court's reasoning: Whatever. Believe what you want. Let me know how the lobbying effort goes to rid all statutes of all books of anything that distinguishes murder on various criteria, bud, as until then, you're living a hypocrisy, for the many reasons I've shown.
In my personal view, there wasn't any less hate on behalf of the black man if he went out and killed a white man for any reason. They are both equally a hate crime of some form. I know you brought up the term hypocritical a lot throughout this thread. The only thing I see that would be clearly hypocritical would be if we were to develop laws on behalf of race after clearly the law states that there should be no difference set between the two. While I do agree that there can be different situations that would require different sentencing, both should equally be labled as First Degree Murder and nothing less and nothing more.
I actually do understand what you're saying. I do not believe in anything being a different form of murder based on 'race, or whatever other reason of the person' I do find such as police officers making them a high class citizen than the rest of us, and 'hate crimes' being more of a racist angle. Hope that makes sense.
PHP, please review the Supreme Court excerpt, posted above. I just did a quick search, and it yielded much of what I have been arguing. It is hypocritical to say deliberate murder is deliberate murder, and then say some deliberate murders are, uh, "worse." I can't repeat for effect, but it is the truth, you can't have it both ways.
Grim, if I've heard you right, you wouldn't argue for a separate law for anybody - all would simply be murder victims. I suspect this is your view (based on past conversations on free speech, etc.), and I can entirely respect that, and understand the reasoning, though I'd disagree - I think the Court's understanding is the right one, namely, some murders portend a greater harm to society than others. Nevertheless, if I've understood your point of view correctly, I respect it as logically consistent. By the way - my "here, let me try another way" wasn't directed at you, but to anyone not seeing what I was saying. It was a sincere attempt to come at the argument from another angle, not to imply ignorance on anyone's part.
Man I am glad I live in SOUTHern Oregon where there is very little racism and we treat the racists with a "warm welcome" So the racists there didn't like the school giving minorities special interests in the college and so they hung an effigy at that college and so now you say it was the Christians doing it? That reminds me of when I lived in Idaho and was a "skateboarder" - the park had a large basketball park area that was divided and the skateboarders got part of the park to put our ramps that we built with our hands and spent our money on the materials for. So someone burns the ramps and the basketball players tell the police that the skateboarders burnt the ramps. Guess what - we lost the park because basketball players burnt our ramps! I guess you can stick with your backwoods - backwards thinking, but injustice should not be tolerated. So was it you that hung the effigy?
I think you mentioned the other night there are t5imes that Supreme Court decisions are wrong. On this they made a politically correct but not intellectually honest decision... as making it a higher crime to kill somebody of one color has the effect of making it a lesser crime to kill someone of another. Again, you already reserved the right to think theyre wrong, and yes, I think you and they are just being politically corrent while paying only lip service to the fact that the constitution does not lend itself to laws that discriminate between persons based on their race. Hypocrisy is thinking it is ok to pass laws that in effect make the life of a person more or less valuable depending on their skin color. It is also hypocrisy to think it is OK for you to point out to me that Supreme Court rulings can be wrong then try and defend your premise with a Supreme Court ruling , but thanks for calling me a hypocrite. I just returned the favor.
I believe the Supreme Court ruled properly as I don't see anywhere in the constitution taking this power away from the states. I however disagree with in this case my own states law..
Jesus, Rob, sometimes you argue persuasively, and then other times, you rely on this kind of crap. You have every right to disagree with the Supreme Court decision. Since I've said: Now, can you see the bolded part? YOU ARE FREE TO DISPUTE THE RULING, AS YOU HAVE. But to call me hypocritical because I relied, AS I SAID, on the legal theory behind this ruling ignores the post I earlier wrote, in defense of your views. On the other hand, it is a fact, and you can dispute the fact, or not: you cannot claim on the one hand "murder is murder," and then agree to a statutory system that distinguishes one kind of murder from another kind on the basis of the murder of public personnel v. civilians. You've changed the class from "race" to "public personnel," but you're still agreeing that some murders are more "heinous" - i.e., more harmful to society generally - than other murders. So if you can think of a logical way both viewpoints can exist in the same universe, please tell me. Grim understood my point, and it seems you've missed it. It is on the notion that a murder that portends greater harm than the murder itself that my argument rests, and I agree with the court's ruling, on an evaluation of its reasoning. You have said they made a "politically correct" ruling, but I see nothing politically correct about the notion that some crimes of a class are seen as more harmful than other crimes, of that same class. Point blank: should there be a law distinguishing the deliberate murder of a police officer from the murder of civilians? Of assassination of a governmental figure from the murder of Joe Blow? If you can answer "no," like Grim, you'd have an argument. If not, on either example or any other like it, you have nothing. I call the Bush's condemnation of Hate crimes legislation while your Guv while supporting the very laws I'm speaking of as hypocritical as it gets, your feelings notwithstanding. Whatever. In case you missed it the first several times, please think on this again, Rob:
I did answer as to why the court erred... re-read my post. As for the other bit... I have yet to argue in favor of the law about police. I dont see it as parallel since police can be of either color and it is NOT an example of passing laws that favor someone or penalize soneone on the basis of race. If I had to remove both laws or accept both and those were my only choices... I'd remove both. I believe in racial equality, and passing laws that determine an outcome depending on the skin color of the participants is again... not in keeping with racial equality. Having restated that same justification as to why the Supreme court acted rashly in making political correctness more important than the constitutional idea of the law being colorblind... I will cease to repeat it furhter. I value racial equality, and "hate laws" merely deny equal enforcement of the law. If that in your eyes makes me a hypocrite, I can live with that.
Re-read mine, Rob. I do not take issue with your disagreeing with the decision, I take issue with your reasons for disagreeing with the decision, and I take issue with your calling me a hypocrite for citing the Supreme Court's decision, on the basis I had earlier said the Court has erred. Frankly, I call bullshit, since I acknowledged that, and said we can go to the decision itself to form why we agree or disagree. There isn't hypocrisy in what I said. And the blood of a civilian is the same as the blood of a police officer. Police officers are considered a "protected class" according to the law, because their murder is considered more grave to society generally, than the murder of an individual from the general populace. This is precisely the reasoning for the establishment of hate crimes legislation - that it isn't race (or sexual orientation, or any of the other criteria) that is the heart of the issue, but the fact that the crime itself is negligible when compared to the intent of the crime - to terrorize an entire swath of the citizenry. So - you must, if you want your logic to hold, get rid of all divisions within the law, or embrace the logic behind the standing divisions. As I said, I may not agree with Grim, but so far, his is the only logical conclusion I've seen, respecting a critique of hate crimes law.
What part of "I have yet to argue in favor of the law about police" was confusing? I did go on to say why it isnt a perfect parallel, but I also said if you are going to leave both laws or remove both laws... remove both. I'm not arguing the police thing, nor have I done so before, so if you're going to endow me with positions I havent taken anywhere, I'll just skip replying further. Congrats on thrashing an argument I never made... grab yourself a Scoobie snack. I've said what I believe and I dont see a lotta point in hanging around to defend positions I never took.
You guys are wayyyy off topic I am not exactly sure any crime was committed in this particular instance unless the card board cut out and the fishing line were stolen. It is free speech even if it is retarded (as in retarding movement forward) free speech. The reference to crimes in the South is a bit misplaced since their were lynchings all over the US and not just of black people and since this fool was obviously not in the South. The entire nation has blame for our history not just the Southern states. http://www.yale.edu/ynhti/curriculum/units/1979/2/79.02.04.x.html#b When some jackass does something in Oregon that vaguely reminds everyone of our bloody history it is just one more barricade in the way of true equality. When everyone stops trying to heal the past and instead moves to the future we might finally have some real equality in this country. We are constantly in our society and culture, trying to make up for or undo two hundred years of fuck-ups and instead we need to move the hell on and treat such people and incidents as the outdated assbackwards thinking fools they are. On a side note, I think it is ironic that the perpetrator is most likely a student at the school and is so upset about a little bit of affirmative action. I mean he/she got in right? Obviously affirmative action didn't hold them back.