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

Palomar · 2005-01-15 13:33:08

*Hi Shaun:

The Governor of New Mexico even addressed the issue on local television the evening before last; his primary office is in Santa Fe (280 miles to the north), though he maintains an office here in town as well. He discussed harsher penalties for child abusers, as did the county attorney. The local television station gave out information on educational resources, and also contact information for a local assistance program which will -- at moment's notice -- take care of children and babies for stressed-out parents.

It is tragically odd, though, that as children have gained more rights in this nation it *seems* the numbers of abuse continue to rise as well. :-\

Frankly, I don't think anyone knows quite HOW to handle the problem. It is definitely a societal ill, and I do agree with the points you raise. ::sigh:: We need to get at the source(s) of the problem.

Education is great, as are assistance programs. However, it seems some people simply ARE abusive.

A 32 year old beating up on a 5-WEEK-old infant? Something's screwy in that person's head to begin with.

--Cindy

Shaun Barrett · 2005-01-15 19:29:07

No need to be defensive, Clark. I was merely pointing out how very thoroughly you've educated us all in the school of moral relativism over the years. Whether you actually subscribe to those views yourself, in your heart of hearts, I wouldn't presume to imply.

Clark:-

.. no, it's all f*cking realtive given the context which is a sliding scale of time and place and culture.

Me:-

.. no perfect solution because behaviour and social mores, in theory, exist on a sliding scale of acceptability ..

Again, no need for a defensive stance, Clark, because you evidently echo my own sentiments.

Clark:-

So spanking a child should be a crime (it seems Shaun would execute would be spankers).

:laugh: I'd have been executed many years ago! Ah, Clark .. always a touch of good-natured humour!

Clark:-

Moral absolutism is all about right and wrong, and I understand it perfectly well- some things are always wrong, no matter what.

Once again, nothing to disagree about here. Maliciously breaking a 5-week-old baby's legs comes under the 'Wrong' category - plain and simple. (Thanks, Cindy, for bringing that case to our attention.)

Without prejudice, toward Clark or anyone else, I would point out that moral relativism, if taken too far, is a stultifying creed at best and downright wrong at worst.
If the far end of the sliding scale holds absolute sway and nothing is really 'right' and nothing is 'wrong', it's simultaneously a reason to do anything you want, no matter how bad, or to do nothing in the name of good, since there is no 'good'!
The result is either inertia or chaos, and probably both.

As I've admitted, and it appears Clark and I are in complete agreement on this (though he seemed unaware of our accord at first), absolutism is a very dangerous thing. But organised society cannot exist without rules. It looks to me, and to a growing number of the people I've spoken to, that the law in Australia is moving along the 'sliding scale' we've mentioned, away from absolutism and toward relativism; the law has gone 'soft' on crime and weak on punishment, I've heard repeatedly.
One of our friends is a lawyer and I've had occasion to raise this popular viewpoint with up to 3 or 4 lawyers at a time, over dinner. The result is always the same .. the ranks close! The attitude of the lawyers is that the situation is much more complex than the layman has any hope of grasping and that ordinary people really shouldn't have any input. At such gatherings, I've been made to feel very much the 'child among adults', whose opinion is quaintly amusing but hardly relevant to an informed legal discussion. The indulgent sniffs and smiles of condescension are unmistakable.
Now, while I'm no lawyer, I don't feel I'm totally incapable of understanding basic societal concepts and making an intelligent comment here and there. But the arrogance of the legal profession is breathtaking to behold; their judgment of what is good or bad for society is evidently held to be innately superior to that of the rest of us.
I note also that such people are not at all coy about displaying their liberal political ideologies, being openly and vehemently critical, for example, of the incumbent conservative Coalition here.

These experiences, together with quite studious reading of the political sections of newspapers, lead me to the conclusion that the legal profession in Australia is heavily populated with individuals of a left-leaning persuasion. Many of our politicians and law-makers are also lawyers.
Given that liberal lawyers are certainly more likely to lean away from moral absolutism and toward moral relativism (who was it that said the law has nothing to do with justice?), it's hard to escape the notion that a close-knit and exclusive 'lawyers club' is gradually changing the face of crime and punishment in Australia in accordance with their own agenda.

Years ago, it was possible to leave your house unlocked when you went out; as a child, I walked right through my neighbours' open house looking for my playmates on numerous occasions, only to realise the whole family had gone out in their car for the morning.
People, even lone females, used to be able to walk down the street after dark, with more than a fifty-fifty chance of not being assaulted.
I managed to attend cubs (cub scouts) for 2 years without once being sexually penetrated while away on camp, or being offered illegal substances around the campfire!
Criminals, convicted of violent crimes, were very unlikely to be released onto the streets on a good-behaviour bond or after a laughably short detention.
Virtually all the kids I knew shared a household with two creatures we now call 'their biological parents', then known simply and affectionately as Mom and Dad. If a woman had three children in those days, the chances were they all had the same father!

I suppose now, if anyone responds to this, we'll hear all the reasons that the swing toward liberalism and moral relativism has nothing whatever to do with today's deterioration in social order and cohesion. I'll be surprised if somebody doesn't try to tell me that there hasn't been any deterioration at all - that it's just an illusion!
I fully expect Clark, ever the stickler for rigid fairness, to point out all the behind-the-scenes horrors of suburban life in the 50s and 60s, the claustrophobic existence of people trapped in loveless marriages for example.

I think we all know the often heart-wrenching disadvantages of a highly ordered social hierarchy - I know I do. But I happen to think society, as a whole, is not served well by a perhaps well-meaning but overzealous erosion of its foundations.
We have to preserve at least some absolute standards and hold them sacrosanct because people need a solid framework within which to function. While it may be aesthetically pleasing, from an intellectual point of view, to put every tenet up for grabs, it's not necessarily good for the average person in the street and for society in general.

Again, just a few opinions.

BWhite · 2005-01-15 21:40:32

http://www.economist.com/world/na/displ … nteresting article about US Culture.

Props due to the space.com message board where I found it.

http://uplink.space.com/showflat.php?Ca … part=]Link to thread

= = = = =

THE United States likes to think of itself as the very embodiment of meritocracy: a country where people are judged on their individual abilities rather than their family connections. The original colonies were settled by refugees from a Europe in which the restrictions on social mobility were woven into the fabric of the state, and the American revolution was partly a revolt against feudalism. From the outset, Americans believed that equality of opportunity gave them an edge over the Old World, freeing them from debilitating snobberies and at the same time enabling everyone to benefit from the abilities of the entire population. They still do.

and this:

But are they right? A growing body of evidence suggests that the meritocratic ideal is in trouble in America. Income inequality is growing to levels not seen since the Gilded Age, around the 1880s. But social mobility is not increasing at anything like the same pace: would-be Horatio Algers are finding it no easier to climb from rags to riches, while the children of the privileged have a greater chance of staying at the top of the social heap. The United States risks calcifying into a European-style class-based society.

= = = = =

Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right. . .

The Republicans, by getting rid of inheritance tax, seem hell-bent on ignoring Teddy Roosevelt's warnings about the dangers of a hereditary aristocracy. The Democrats are more interested in preferment for minorities than building ladders of opportunity for all.

Edited By BWhite on 1105847260

DonPanic · 2005-01-16 18:35:28

LO
Froggy'spying US debates
Not so many differences, after all.
Shaun, d'you know that in center Eurasia, some people complain that nowadays, unlike during Gengis Khan era, a young virgin maid may not anymore cross Siberia with a bucket of gold on the head, and jewels round the neck and arms, untouched ?

Palomar · 2005-06-12 07:22:34

*Uh-oh, here we go...

The "Minutemen" along the U.S.-Mexico border is now in my state. A small group of locals stood in front of city hall yesterday, protesting.

I'll know if this generates -a lot- of racial tension if I start getting flipped off and face other aggressive behaviors in traffic, when I'm driving alone.

More reports of these Minutemen carrying guns and etc.

The last I'd heard, the Arizona "Minutemen" thing had disbanded and people had gone home; it was to be temporary. But apparently they're still active in Arizona and now locals in this state are taking up the cause.

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2005-06-12 07:50:11

The last I'd heard, the Arizona "Minutemen" thing had disbanded and people had gone home; it was to be temporary. But apparently they're still active in Arizona and now locals in this state are taking up the cause.

Symptomatic. Not only with regards to immigration but other issues as well, there is a slowly but steadily growing percentage of the population that is getting so fed up with their government's unwillingness or inability to deal with problems that they're increasingly inclined to act independently.

If things follow the course we're currently on, in a few years time we'll see citizen "militias" acting without oversight on everything from illegal immigration to law enforcement. And I must confess, in many cases I won't be able to hold it against them.

The only question is what specific event or chain of events is going to trigger it.

On the plus side, historically speaking when Americans stop talking and act we usually end up better for it in the long run.

Palomar · 2005-06-12 11:31:15

*Of course I've brought this issue up before. Again, I'm concerned about when it becomes vigilanteeism. Maybe this isn't vigilanteeism...but (unintended pun) where's the line?

I'd prefer law enforcement to be kept in the hands of people on a payroll, wearing uniforms and badges. Answerable to a chain of command, capable of being reprimanded, punished or fired.

This has quite a potential for abuse.

As for private citizens taking general law enforcement into their hands, that particularly concerns me. As an example, were I to drive alone to Tucson this afternoon and a cop pulled me over, there'd be little fear on my part. Yeah, bad things have happened to lone drivers when a rogue cop comes along. But a strange man (or even woman for that matter) driving in a car or pickup truck, regular citizen? No way.

I see where you're coming from with your last sentence, somewhat.

Overall, I just don't trust most people who get some sort of power...especially if they take it upon themselves. Then it becomes a free-for-all with "who decides" and "to what level."

But perhaps I've missed some finer point(s) in your reply.

-*-

On a different note: My state just passed a law wherein FELONS can serve jury duty. :hm:

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2005-06-12 12:20:18

On a different note: My state just passed a law wherein FELONS can serve jury duty. :hm:

A fine example of the sort of thing that will lead citizens to increasingly do on their own what government should be doing. Letting convicted felons serve on a jury is generally stupid. As is refusing to control who comes into the country, as is reducing sentences for violent criminals in order to make room in prisons for small time drug offenders. more and more we're seeing people looking around and saying "what the hell is wrong with everyone?" Elected officials don't help, they're by and large too spineless to go against the grain.

Citizens volunteering to guard the borders shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone, unchecked illegal immigration has been damaging to many communities and while government should be doing something about it instead of half-cocked yahoos, they aren't. It's only going to expand. particularly when these "Minutemen" have a run-in with drug runners are some of the more aggressive alien trafficers.

For another peripherally related example, back in the "Race and Culture" thread several cases of ethnic violence committed by immigrants against women of the native population in Europe and Australia were discussed. A few of those incidents, if adequately publicized (not necessarily in mainstream media) and not dealt with by government will incite action on the part of citizens. And it won't be pretty.

In a way it's rather ironic, we've enacted policies designed to prevent racism, vigilanteeism and general social disorder but those policies are leading directly to the very things they supposedly are meant to prevent. When that first shootout on the border happens, it won't be solely the result of trigger-happy vigilantes. It will the inevitable outcome of decades of bad policy.

Palomar · 2005-06-12 12:52:00

In a way it's rather ironic, we've enacted policies designed to prevent racism, vigilanteeism and general social disorder but those policies are leading directly to the very things they supposedly are meant to prevent. When that first shootout on the border happens, it won't be solely the result of trigger-happy vigilantes. It will the inevitable outcome of decades of bad policy.

*Yeah.

As for the illegal immigration/"Minutemen" situation, it seems to me (though I could be totally wrong) that the tipping point has been the debate(s) over whether or not illegal immigrants should be allowed to have drivers licenses.

Of course they shouldn't. They're not supposed to be here in the first place, let alone remaining here and driving around.

Everyone is afraid of the accusation of "racist." Even when the policy or whatever is for the best of many (of any and every ethnicity).

Last evening one of the protestors said he was acting on behalf of some Latino organization. I wonder how he'd react to the same number of white Canadians crossing our border illegaly and etc.? It's easy to grumble when the shoe isn't on the other foot. That goes for all of us (human nature).

--Cindy

P.S.: I'm especially curious to see how this plays out in the Latino population here. I've known some U.S.-born Latinos who despise Mexican Nationals (frequently calling them all sorts of unpleasant names) and who would support the effort (many of our Border Patrol guards are Latino). Guess I'll find out. :-\

C M Edwards · 2005-06-13 08:12:31

Anyone who doesn't understand the motivation behind the minutemen simply needs to go home, look out their front window, and imagine watching a tresspasser walking across their front yard. Keep imagining it, every day.

With the exception of the more dangerous passages (those ones in the news, with people dying in the desert), most everybody making an illegal crossing has to travel across land owned by someone in the US. Usually the owner lives on the parcel in question, in a nice house with food, water, and tempting valuables. Desperate mexicans are no more likely to follow the law than desperate americans. If your place is a sufficiently popular crossing, and sufficiently isolated, eventually you will be burgled.

Statistically, the incidence of burglary related to illegal immigration is so low as to be nearly negligible. Less than one in a thousand illegal immigrants enters this country with the intent of committing a felony. But if you have a thousand tresspassers a year walking across your front lawn, eventually you are bound to encounter one who doesn't just keep walking.

Palomar · 2005-06-13 09:13:29

Anyone who doesn't understand the motivation behind the minutemen simply needs to go home, look out their front window, and imagine watching a tresspasser walking across their front yard. Keep imagining it, every day.
With the exception of the more dangerous passages (those ones in the news, with people dying in the desert), most everybody making an illegal crossing has to travel across land owned by someone in the US. Usually the owner lives on the parcel in question, in a nice house with food, water, and tempting valuables. Desperate mexicans are no more likely to follow the law than desperate americans. If your place is a sufficiently popular crossing, and sufficiently isolated, eventually you will be burgled.
Statistically, the incidence of burglary related to illegal immigration is so low as to be nearly negligible. Less than one in a thousand illegal immigrants enters this country with the intent of committing a felony. But if you have a thousand tresspassers a year walking across your front lawn, eventually you are bound to encounter one who doesn't just keep walking.

*Yeah CM, I know all that.

-----I'm also more than familiar with how abusive people can be who take it upon themselves to wield power.-----

----Especially when that power isn't answerable to anyone.-----

The gov't should be taking care of the problem.

But of course they won't, so back to square one.

And I do live here, in "The Zone."

There have been some encounters between illegals crossing over and ranchers. Not sure if you've been in the Southwest, but a lot of those ranches are dozens of acres large, if not hundreds -- a lot of empty space, in other words. There are few reports of ranchers encountering illegals, fights, gun draws, etc.

Does that make it okay for the illegals to trespass anyway? No, of course not.

And there is also the issue of our Border Patrol agents' safety. Lots of assaults on them, etc. We need to step up our BP force; hire more people, etc.

--Cindy

P.S.: And then there's Bill O'Reilly, sitting up there in New York (might as well be Honolulu, Hawaii) thinking he knows all about the situation, lives right in it, etc.

C M Edwards · 2005-06-13 14:01:29

-----I'm also more than familiar with how abusive people can be who take it upon themselves to wield power.-----
----Especially when that power isn't answerable to anyone.-----
[...] And then there's Bill O'Reilly, sitting up there in New York (might as well be Honolulu, Hawaii) thinking he knows all about the situation, lives right in it, etc.

I've got it! We can send in Bill O'Reilly! He'll straighten out those vigilantees and desperados!

Every generation should have a hero to look up to like Bill O'Reilly.

:laugh:

Palomar · 2005-06-14 08:12:17

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u … 1]Lynching was never officially outlawed??

*I must be naive to have thought it surely was outlawed and therefore illegal many years ago.

The oldest-known survivor of a lynching is mentioned in the article, an elderly black man now 91 years old.

They're right to call this domestic terrorism. And I'm surprised to read lynchings occurred in 46 states. I'll admit I usually associate lynchings with the Deep South. ::shakes head::

So the Senate is finally apologizing, owing up and making it illegal.

Now what about gay bashing? It's not considered a hate crime. But that is what gay bashing is. Any homosexual man or woman who is attacked because of their sexual orientation is the victim of a hate crime (domestic terrorism), IMO. When will the gov't own up to this as well?

--Cindy

P.S.: Over 4700 people killed via lynching between 1880 and 1960. That is so incomprehensible. What a disgrace.

Cobra Commander · 2005-06-14 08:35:40

Now what about gay bashing? It's not considered a hate crime. But that is what gay bashing is. Any homosexual man or woman who is attacked because of their sexual orientation is the victim of a hate crime (domestic terrorism), IMO.

Whoa, hold up.

This is one of the problems in US culture today, in my oh so humble opinion. "Hate Crime" has got to go, it artificially imposes a distinction where none exists, making the matter worse. If someone beats the crap of a a guy because he's gay, black, Jewish, a Republican or just an a$$hole it's assault. That's all. Punish that, the attitude that it's somehow worse if the victim or prosecutor believes it was motivated by dislike of a group rather than the individual is not relevant.

"terrorism" is another term we don't want to be throwing around willy-nilly. If "gay bashing" is "domestic terrorism" then surely any kind of bashing also qualifies. Does the PATRIOT Act apply if as you shove someone you call them "queer"?

Which is indicative of another problem in our culture, the compulsive need to legislate. Hating people is bad, therefore we need a law. Nevermind that the law does nothing but exacerbate tensions. We've lost sight of the purpose of laws, instead of trying to control behavior by punishing harmful acts we try to control attitudes by punishing the thought behind a harmful act. When we aren't punishing people for not doing what someone thinks is in their own best interest that is. It's Orwellian when you think about it. "Punching this guy was bad enough, but we think you did it because we believe you hate gay people. (Jury stares at the gay guy) We shall punish you more!"

Well, that's enough ranting on that subject.

clark · 2005-06-14 08:52:39

Attacking someone based on a unique identifier (such as ethnicity or sexual orientation) demonstrates a level of premeditation that is not otherwise associated with “regular” violent behavior.

Getting into a fight because the other guy is an a@@hole is one thing. Most people can understand that and agree that punishment should not be as severe as someone getting into a fight only because the other guy is black, brown, a woman, or gay.

The underlying reason, or intent, differentiates the two actions, and as such, should be judged differently.

Cobra Commander · 2005-06-14 09:04:03

The underlying reason, or intent, differentiates the two actions, and as such, should be judged differently.

Punishing intent is very different from punishing reason.

"He beat the crap out of this guy, said he was trying to kill him but we got there too fast."

Okay, attempted murder. Punish intent.

"He beat the crap out of this guy, said he was trying to kill him, we think because he was gay, but we got there too fast."

Are we going to start punishing what people thought when they did something?

Can I get away with murder if I think happy thoughts during the act?

When we introduce the idea of "hate crimes" we are accepting that we can punish people for what we believe they were thinking. It is not a sound legal foundation.

clark · 2005-06-14 09:07:39

So killing would be murder, no matter what?

I run someone over, whom I happened not to see because they darted out, that is the same as purposely swerving to hit them? There is intent.

People who target groups of people are a threat to those groups, much like pedophiles are a threat to a particular group of people. Society is right to treat the crimes of individuals that target groups within the society differently than 'regular' crime.

Afterall, we treat terroists differently than common criminals.

Palomar · 2005-06-14 09:16:13

Punishing intent is very different from punishing reason.
"He beat the crap out of this guy, said he was trying to kill him but we got there too fast."
Okay, attempted murder. Punish intent.
"He beat the crap out of this guy, said he was trying to kill him, we think because he was gay, but we got there too fast."
Are we going to start punishing what people thought when they did something?
Can I get away with murder if I think happy thoughts during the act?
When we introduce the idea of "hate crimes" we are accepting that we can punish people for what we believe they were thinking. It is not a sound legal foundation.

*But Cobra, what if the offender admits to sexual orientation being the motivating factor in a crime? Many years ago (true story) a lesbian came forward about an ordeal she'd been through: A male acquaintance raped her. He told her during the rape that he was doing this because she was a lesbian; he said she "needed to be shown what it means to be a woman."

Some people have confessed to beating up on a gay man because he's gay...or suspected of being gay.

If they confess that their assaults are based upon sexual orientation, it's a hate crime IMO.

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2005-06-14 09:17:02

So killing would be murder, no matter what?
I run someone over, whom I happened not to see because they darted out, that is the same as purposely swerving to hit them? There is intent.

Clark, I already covered this. Intent is important.

But what motivates that intent? Gets a little murkier.

People who target groups of people are a threat to those groups, much like pedophiles are a threat to a particular group of people.

Pedophiles by definition target children, simple. Hate crime isn't so simple. If some guy molests a child, pedophile. Boom, label that clearly fits for the action.

Some white guy attacks a black guy for some unknown reason. Is that a hate crime? Well, some say yes for the simple fact that two races are involved. Silly. Maybe the white guy just thought the black dude was a prick. But in the minds of some prosecutors that's a hate crime regardless. Again, we can't start punishing people for what we think they thought.

Hate crime, thought crime, essentially the same thing.

Cobra Commander · 2005-06-14 09:25:32

If they confess that their assaults are based upon sexual orientation, it's a hate crime IMO.

Cindy, I understand what you're saying. I just don't agree for this reason:

People commit assaults, rapes and murders for all sorts of reasons. Sometimes they target an individual, sometimes it's a member of a group, sometimes they hear voices, sometimes they just feel like it.

My concern is punishing the act and protecting others from it. I don't particularly give a damn what was running through the offender's head at the time. It's immaterial to the actual events.

"But doesn't hate crime help us protect members of that group?" I hear from the void. Sure. So segregate everyone. Blacks, whites, latinos, asians, arabs etc. attack each other all the time. Let's just separate everyone. Aryan Nations had a plan all drawn up a few years back.

What? Oh, I thought we were actually serious, not just trying to soothe our senses of personal justice and "rightness".

The act is the crime. Motive is something used to identify and prosecute the criminal. Motive is not a crime in and of itself.

I hate criminals. If I kill a few is that a hate crime?
Why not?

clark · 2005-06-14 09:26:41

Maybe the white guy just thought the black dude was a prick. But in the minds of some prosecutors that's a hate crime regardless. Again, we can't start punishing people for what we think they thought.

Sure we can. We do it all the time. We do it to foreigners right now. :laugh:

So let the prosecutor try the accused, so what? That’s what a jury is for. Look to reform the jury system if you want to change something. I think it is more than appropriate to charge someone with a hate crime if the evidence suggests (remember, e-v-i-d-e-n-c-e) that the crime was motivated out of hate.

If the evidence doesn’t support the prosecutions claim, then the jury can acquit. If it does, lock the ignorant backwards bastards up. A Fascist arguing for criminal rights?! Now I’ve heard everything.

Your argument, while interesting from a philosophical point of view, is not practical given the reality that individuals do commit crimes based solely on another individuals unique identifier or belonging to a specific group. Criminals who target groups because they belong to said groups are worse than common criminals and just below psycho-paths.

I’m really surprised you won’t admit that such individuals present a greater threat to society than the laws we use to protect ourselves from them. [shrug]

clark · 2005-06-14 09:28:07

I hate criminals. If I kill a few is that a hate crime?
Why not?

No. Criminals are not a protected group. But I will sign the petition if you would like.

Palomar · 2005-06-14 09:37:30

*Okay, Cobra. I see where you're coming from.

I just recalled that we had a similar discussion many months ago.

Of course there's the added issue of "if they classify certain acts as a hate crime, why not do the same for the protection of gays as well" (and if they don't, it seems homophobic IMO)...but then the answer you seem to give is to go back to punishing the act, without regard for the intent (for all crimes).

At this point I can't differ with your reasoning, which is rational and superb like always.

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2005-06-14 09:53:45

I think it is more than appropriate to charge someone with a hate crime if the evidence suggests (remember, e-v-i-d-e-n-c-e) that the crime was motivated out of hate.

Some guy hates his ex-wife and kills her. Is that a hate crime or does he have to target other ex-wives too?

Surely a case could be made that rapists hate women, at least on some level. Everytime, hate crime. In addition to the actual crime of rape. Rape a woman of another race and that's double-super hate crime.

Is it a hate crime if you target only members of your own race?

Howard Dean said he hates Republicans. We better get on this.

What we're talking about here is essentially the same as punishing a crime more severely if the perpetrator wanted donuts after, thought the magic word or dreamt about those snafa-loons the night before. It's a shifty, fuzzy mess we're better off not giving the weight of law.

A Fascist arguing for criminal rights?! Now I’ve heard everything.

I'm arguing for rational law.

I’m really surprised you won’t admit that such individuals present a greater threat to society than the laws we use to protect ourselves from them. [shrug]

Those laws don't protect us, they merely add extra punishment for crimes based on subjective value judgments. Kill your neighbor and you're a murderer, but kill your neighbor because he's a negro <gasp>. . . a racist murder just goes too far.

Of course there's the added issue of "if they classify certain acts as a hate crime, why not do the same for the protection of gays as well" (and if they don't, it seems homophobic IMO)...

I can see your reasoning there. And like the gay marriage debate, my solution is to drop laws instead of add new ones.

Those legal references are too thick as it is, they need an editor.

clark · 2005-06-14 10:06:09

Hate crimes are particularly odious because there are certain groups within society, almost universally minorities of some sort, who lack power, and who lack the means to adequately protect themselves from those who seek to victimize them. 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.

Hate crime laws are about empowering minorities that are largely powerless in the face of those who look to take advantage of their minority status.

Do over zealous prosecutors abuse the laws to try people who do not necessarily commit their crimes based on “hate”. Probably. However, I for one see no reason to throw the baby out with the bath water. 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.

Oh, and your reasoning makes me think you're kind of cute too. :laugh:

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#101 2005-01-15 13:33:08

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

#102 2005-01-15 19:29:07

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

#103 2005-01-15 21:40:32

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

#104 2005-01-16 18:35:28

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

#105 2005-06-12 07:22:34

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

#106 2005-06-12 07:50:11

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

#107 2005-06-12 11:31:15

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

#108 2005-06-12 12:20:18

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

#109 2005-06-12 12:52:00

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

#110 2005-06-13 08:12:31

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

#111 2005-06-13 09:13:29

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

#112 2005-06-13 14:01:29

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

#113 2005-06-14 08:12:17

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

#114 2005-06-14 08:35:40

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

#115 2005-06-14 08:52:39

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

#116 2005-06-14 09:04:03

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

#117 2005-06-14 09:07:39

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

#118 2005-06-14 09:16:13

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

#119 2005-06-14 09:17:02

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

#120 2005-06-14 09:25:32

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

#121 2005-06-14 09:26:41

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

#122 2005-06-14 09:28:07

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

#123 2005-06-14 09:37:30

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

#124 2005-06-14 09:53:45

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

#125 2005-06-14 10:06:09

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

Board footer