U.S. Culture - ...where's it going?

Cobra Commander · 2005-06-14 10:16:06

Hate crime laws were enacted to empower these groups and to demonstrate that society at large would not accept those who actively seek and target minorities to victimize.

Here we go. . .
Laws aren't supposed to "empower" people. They just make clear to all that defined crimes against them result in defined punishments.

We could just as easily change the requirements and level of evidence necessary to charge someone with a hate crime as we could undo the entire legal edifice.

Hate crime laws are very recent additions by and large. Dumping them is hardly undoing the entire legal edifice. No more so than repealing Campaign Finance Reform, the PATRIOT Act or changing a speed limit.

BWhite · 2005-06-14 10:33:16

"Hate crime" legislation is like RICO - - it targets people who target groups rather than random individuals.

=IF= racism, sexism and homophobia were to be eradicated from our society =THEN= I would agree with Cobra and say hate crimes are not rational. But since I believe certain minorities are at a significant disadvantage in terms of power, I agree with clark that "hate crime" legislation does accomplish valid societal purposes.

BWhite · 2005-06-14 10:36:38

Hate crime laws were enacted to empower these groups and to demonstrate that society at large would not accept those who actively seek and target minorities to victimize.
Here we go. . .
Laws aren't supposed to "empower" people. They just make clear to all that defined crimes against them result in defined punishments.
We could just as easily change the requirements and level of evidence necessary to charge someone with a hate crime as we could undo the entire legal edifice.
Hate crime laws are very recent additions by and large. Dumping them is hardly undoing the entire legal edifice. No more so than repealing Campaign Finance Reform, the PATRIOT Act or changing a speed limit.

Its very much like "affirmative action" legislation.

For now, lets just say I can predict my future posts and Cobra's future posts as if they were forced chess moves in a problem.

Been there, done that. Neither he nor I will persuade the other.

Now, how about 'dem Pistons?

:;):

Cobra Commander · 2005-06-14 10:42:21

But since I believe certain minorities are at a significant disadvantage in terms of power, I agree with clark that "hate crime" legislation does accomplish valid societal purposes.

Such as?

Not trying to be snide, just interested in getting to the bottom of it.

Does it reduce the prejudice and tensions? No. In some cases it may even make them worse.

Does it reduce the number of crimes against the specified minorities? No.

Crimes against the specified minorities by other groups? Uncertain, but unlikely. After all the average white supremacist skinhead out smacking blacks and gays around is part of a minority himself. Trying to assign behaviors by race or other grouping serves no purpose but to perpetuate racism or whatever forced distinction applies.

Does it foster unity and brotherhood? Admittedly I'm being facetious with this one, but no.

Does it let politicians grandstand? . . . yes. We may have found the real reason.

Comparing hate crime laws to RICO doesn't exactly instill confidence either. It seems that these days RICO is used for everything but racketeering.

And still the IRS is in business.

For now, lets just say I can predict my future posts and Cobra's future posts as if they were forced chess moves in a problem.

Indeed. This horse is getting a little ripe.

Posterity will prove me right.

Now, how about 'dem Pistons?

If they don't turn it around on home turf tonight, then the jokes will start. Followed in a few days by car fires.

Well, those happen either way.
???

Edited By Cobra Commander on 1118767729

BWhite · 2005-06-14 10:46:59

Words are slippery things.

For example, for Reagan to campaign on "states rights" in Selma Alabama, that's just secret code for relaxing protections for blacks.

"Sure its wrong to lynch blacks we ALL know that. Ooops the sheriff just lost the evidence. Sooo sorry about that but we gotta let these good ole' boys go. . ."

Wink, wink, nod, nod etc. . .

= = =

Cigarettes CAUSE cancer? Well golly-gee EVERYONE knows that!

And no we didn't LIE under OATH when we told Congress there was no credible scientific evidence cigarettes cause cancer.

Edited By BWhite on 1118767739

clark · 2005-06-14 10:51:18

Now, how about 'dem Pistons?

I thought the National Hockey League was on strike.

To be honest, I don't care. This is more of an intellectual exercise, considering I weighed in on Cobra's side before on this very same subject.

I can see both sides, but at some point I am willing to put the philosphical esoteric bull-sh*t aside and look at the practical world we all have to live in.

I don't think hate crime laws are worse than the criminals convicted under them. I prefer the hate crime laws, which call for heavier penalties, thus preventing the return of these individuals into society for longer periods of time, or at greater personal cost to themselves, rather than having people we know act out because they are ignorant jack asses who attack and hurt others because of their gender or they way they look or because they like dudes.

That's just me. I'm not saying you're wrong Cobra, or even saying that those who agree with you are wrong. But you are. :laugh:

BWhite · 2005-06-14 10:52:09

About those Pistons, many years ago when Jordan and company battled Lambore and company First Chicago Bank ran an ad campaign against NBD Bank.

"Why would you bank with Pistons fans?"

Now? The've merged.

Cobra Commander · 2005-06-14 10:58:41

For example, for Reagan to campaign on "states rights" in Selma Alabama, that's just secret code for relaxing protections for blacks.

Of course, because we all know that Southern Republicans are really just closet Confederates itching to reimpose slavery.

Both might be right. Some Southerners don't hink too highly of integrating blacks into theor population, in part because of their legitimate belief that the feds overstepped their authority in imposing it. On the other hand, many people of a certain political persuasion have a tendency to dismiss "states rights" arguments as a quaint throwback to pre-Civil War America.

Both are right and wrong at the same time.

And no we didn't LIE under OATH when we told Congress there was no credible scientific evidence cigarettes cause cancer.

Well, cigarrettes don't cause cancer. Their use makes one far more susceptible to cancer though.

See, both sides are right depending on how they interpret the words. Either can rightly accuse the other of lying.

Cobra Commander · 2005-06-14 11:03:40

I prefer the hate crime laws, which call for heavier penalties, thus preventing the return of these individuals into society for longer periods of time, or at greater personal cost to themselves, rather than having people we know act out because they are ignorant jack asses who attack and hurt others because of their gender or they way they look or because they like dudes.

Then why not just make the penalty for the actual criminal act more severe, apply it across the board. If it's really about protecting people, why must certain murderers/rapists/assaulting goons be punished worse than others for the same act?

clark · 2005-06-14 11:14:37

Then why not just make the penalty for the actual criminal act more severe, apply it across the board.

Okay.

Let's build more prisons. :up:

If it's really about protecting people, why must certain murderers/rapists/assaulting goons be punished worse than others for the same act?

Because intent and motivation are different. People who commit hate crimes are more likely to be repeat offenders, because they act out and target a particular group. That group is in danger.

I'll wait for your response since I know what it will be...

Cobra Commander · 2005-06-14 11:28:11

<sighs, draws back dead-horse whip>

Okay.
Let's build more prisons.

Another problem in this culture of ours, punishing every crime with prison. In most cases it isn't the most appropriate answer.

Because intent and motivation are different. People who commit hate crimes are more likely to be repeat offenders, because they act out and target a particular group. That group is in danger.

Alrigt, needs to be said. All criminals target specific groups. You're just giving some more weight than others arbitrarily. It doesn't change anything

But if it makes you feel better, have at it. I think there's an Affirmative Action blanket in here someplace too.

BWhite · 2005-06-14 11:31:48

Speaking of http://www.landoverbaptist.org/news0605 … s.html]U.S. Culture. . .

Cobra Commander · 2005-06-14 11:33:43

:laugh:

The ads at the side are even better. "Accept Jesus and get a Playstation 2"

:laugh:

Edited By Cobra Commander on 1118770597

BWhite · 2005-06-14 13:16:15

"Silly chimpanzees"

Great phrase, I think I will steal it. . .

C M Edwards · 2005-06-14 14:07:56

Do you want to know a really sad thing? I had already clicked three links before I realized that I was reading a satire. Sometimes its hard to tell...

clark · 2005-06-14 14:11:11

Do you want to know a really sad thing? I had already clicked three links before I realized that I was reading a satire. Sometimes its hard to tell...

Speaking of U.S. Culture...

I was more put off by that jesus-thong. :laugh:

reddragon · 2005-06-14 18:08:39

I'm not sure what the standard of evidence for proving that a crime was motivated by hate against a specific group is. A reasonable solution might be to require a demonstrated history of action against said group particularly in the form of previous crimes. However, on the whole issue of whether motive should matter n sentencing, I am still somewhat divided.

Another problem in this culture of ours, punishing every crime with prison. In most cases it isn't the most appropriate answer.

I tend to agree with this, although I'm not sure if I'm thinking of it the same way you are. Are you suggesting more harsh, one might say "barbaric", punishments such as death, beating, torture, etc.; more rehabilitation programs especially for drug offenders; or programs that give something back to society or the government to help make up for what the criminal took such as fines, community service, forced labor, or having to repay plus some the value of stolen or destroyed property. I like the last two options but not the first.

Cobra Commander · 2005-06-15 05:46:18

I tend to agree with this, although I'm not sure if I'm thinking of it the same way you are.

While I'm sure we'll have some points of disagreement, I tend to believe that punishments should fit the crime more so than they do currently. If a person steals, they ought to be forced to compensate the victim with interest. Not a fine to the state, I'm very distrustful of creating economic incentives to convict people of crimes. Make restitution to those from whom you stole with government oversight to ensure it's done would be my approach to theft.

Drug use I wouldn't even classify as criminal as long is it only hurts the person using. If people choose to kill themselves it's no concern of mine, regardless of how long it takes.

For murder, a range of punishments should apply depending on the circumstances.

For rape, I am of the firm opinion that the punishment should be death. Unlike killing someone, it is never justifiable, cannot be done in self defense and is not as subject to "mitigating circumstances".

So in essence, if it were my call, I'd have some people calling me "soft on crime" and others "Draconian barbarian" for the same policies. <shrug>

Palomar · 2005-06-15 05:55:26

If a person steals, they ought to be forced to compensate the victim with interest. Not a fine to the state, I'm very distrustful of creating economic incentives to convict people of crimes. Make restitution to those from whom you stole with government oversight to ensure it's done would be my approach to theft.

*I agree. And on a somewhat different note, if a governmental entity overcharges taxpayers, the money should be returned to the taxpayers...and not be shipped off in one handsome lump sum to City Hall, for the mayor and his/her lackeys to decide what should be done with it. That recently occurred in a nearby city; a few hundred thousand dollars. Likely that $ will never see the light of day again.

Different issue, I know, but the principle is the same IMO.

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2005-06-15 06:04:14

*I agree. And on a somewhat different note, if a governmental entity overcharges taxpayers, the money should be returned to the taxpayers...and not be shipped off in one handsome lump sum to City Hall, for the mayor and his/her lackeys to decide what should be done with it.

It seems to me that Americans have developed a very strong "subject" attitude with relation to government. All this talk of "the government's money" and the underlying assumption that they should handle it.

Of course the fact is that government has no money but what it's given or takes. Perhaps if more Americans stopped thinking of it as a duty or social obligation to pay taxes and began treating it as more of a business transaction we'd be better off. Instead of "Pay your taxes or you won't have police or schools" we should start asking "how are you going to spend this money on police and schools, what are the goals and priorities and how does your spending plan help reach them?"

Then when they say "enforcing seat belt laws and hiring more school administrators", don't pay.

To think, our forefathers fought a war over taxes and being treated like subjects, and what do we do? ???

Are we more civilized, or just wussies?

Edited By Cobra Commander on 1118837077

Palomar · 2005-06-15 06:14:40

*I agree. And on a somewhat different note, if a governmental entity overcharges taxpayers, the money should be returned to the taxpayers...and not be shipped off in one handsome lump sum to City Hall, for the mayor and his/her lackeys to decide what should be done with it.
It seems to me that Americans have developed a very strong "subject" attitude with relation to government. All this talk of "the government's money" and the underlying assumption that they should handle it.
Of course the fact is that government has no money but what it's given or takes. Perhaps if more Americans stopped thinking of it as a duty or social obligation to pay taxes and began treating it as more of a business transaction we'd be better off. Instead of "Pay your taxes or you won't have police or schools" we should start asking "how are you going to spend this money on police and schools, what are the goals and priorities and how does your spending plan help reach them?"
Then when they say "enforcing seat belt laws and hiring more school administrators", don't pay.
To think, our forefathers fought a war over taxes and being treated like subjects, and what do we do? ???
Are we more civilized, or just wussies?

*Wimps. DD/SS. In the 1770's we cast off nobility and royalty only to have the wealthy landowners take over (which is what they wanted for starters; they deemed themselves equal to their former lords and masters, but no one else could be equal to them). Getting away from religious oppression/control was a motivating factor in early colonization, and yet America is just oh-so religious.

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. It's only the roles and who can play them which have changed...slightly.

The working class just better shut up and keep groveling. Unfortunately, most do. And of course the powerful know they can count on certain behaviors from the many sheep amongst the working class.

Sorry for the adage, but it does come to mind: The more things change, the more they stay the same.

--Cindy

Palomar · 2005-06-15 06:19:45

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050614/ap_ … _fuel]Atom bomb history

*Might as well place this here. Won't create a new thread for it.

--Cindy

clark · 2005-06-15 06:29:46

Instead of "Pay your taxes or you won't have police or schools" we should start asking "how are you going to spend this money on police and schools, what are the goals and priorities and how does your spending plan help reach them?"

I always thought they called them elections and platforms. But I here women think Edwards is cute.

Cobra Commander · 2005-06-15 06:37:29

The working class just better shut up and keep groveling. Unfortunately, most do. And of course the powerful know they can count on certain behaviors from the many sheep amongst the working class.

That's one of the dirty little secrets of democracy. Most people will always do what they're told if the threat of force or even inconvenience is implied. Make the difficulty of resisting more troublesome than compliance and the vast bulk will go along. Then each little increase isn't enough on its own to justify action, and on and on.

In a sense, everyone who truly believes that representative democracy gives the people power over their government and makes everyone equal under the law has been played.

Humans are pack animals. We naturally choose leaders based on a handful of fairly simple traits and follow the hierarchy that results. We like to think we're more rational, individualistic and free-thinking beings but for the most part it just isn't true. Our methods of choosing Alphas have changed slightly with the times, direct individual combat for example has fallen out of favor. Though it would make Presidential debates more entertaining.

But there will always be a few sneaky Betas shaking things up and exerting influence. :;):

I always thought they called them elections and platforms.

Sure, if you believe what politicians tell you.

clark · 2005-06-15 06:43:58

disenfranchised with the state of our democracy? Cynical?

Ahhhh.... U.S. Culture. :laugh:

We like to think we're more rational, individualistic and free-thinking beings but for the most part it just isn't true.

Ba-ba blacksheep.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#126 2005-06-14 10:16:06

Re: U.S. Culture - ...where's it going?

#127 2005-06-14 10:33:16

Re: U.S. Culture - ...where's it going?

#128 2005-06-14 10:36:38

Re: U.S. Culture - ...where's it going?

#129 2005-06-14 10:42:21

Re: U.S. Culture - ...where's it going?

#130 2005-06-14 10:46:59

Re: U.S. Culture - ...where's it going?

#131 2005-06-14 10:51:18

Re: U.S. Culture - ...where's it going?

#132 2005-06-14 10:52:09

Re: U.S. Culture - ...where's it going?

#133 2005-06-14 10:58:41

Re: U.S. Culture - ...where's it going?

#134 2005-06-14 11:03:40

Re: U.S. Culture - ...where's it going?

#135 2005-06-14 11:14:37

Re: U.S. Culture - ...where's it going?

#136 2005-06-14 11:28:11

Re: U.S. Culture - ...where's it going?

#137 2005-06-14 11:31:48

Re: U.S. Culture - ...where's it going?

#138 2005-06-14 11:33:43

Re: U.S. Culture - ...where's it going?

#139 2005-06-14 13:16:15

Re: U.S. Culture - ...where's it going?

#140 2005-06-14 14:07:56

Re: U.S. Culture - ...where's it going?

#141 2005-06-14 14:11:11

Re: U.S. Culture - ...where's it going?

#142 2005-06-14 18:08:39

Re: U.S. Culture - ...where's it going?

#143 2005-06-15 05:46:18

Re: U.S. Culture - ...where's it going?

#144 2005-06-15 05:55:26

Re: U.S. Culture - ...where's it going?

#145 2005-06-15 06:04:14

Re: U.S. Culture - ...where's it going?

#146 2005-06-15 06:14:40

Re: U.S. Culture - ...where's it going?

#147 2005-06-15 06:19:45

Re: U.S. Culture - ...where's it going?

#148 2005-06-15 06:29:46

Re: U.S. Culture - ...where's it going?

#149 2005-06-15 06:37:29

Re: U.S. Culture - ...where's it going?

#150 2005-06-15 06:43:58

Re: U.S. Culture - ...where's it going?

Board footer