|
Post by thorshairspray on Mar 12, 2017 13:44:18 GMT
First case, community service and or a fine. Second one same thing, possibly a custodial sentence of upto six months based on severity. Note, that is a completely different crime and circumstance. So a fine and community service is an appropriate punishment for racially abusing the mother of my child? Ok then. Tells me all I need to know about you. You just quoted what I said. How is it you missed out the bit where I said "...possibly a custodial sentence of upto six months..." exactly how dishonest do you want to be? What punishment would you deem acceptable? Also, when my girlfriend was threatened and abused by some cockbag, do you think his sentence should have been lesser, greater or the same as the guys who abused yours?
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Mar 12, 2017 15:44:28 GMT
So "hurt feelings" 12 months in prison Actual financial loss and deprivation of property, six months in prison. Yes. I still fail to see the problem. The UK legal system has apparently ruled that a hate crime is to be punished more severely than a car theft. You may not like it, but that's the way it is. If you consider this a problem, then I'm guessing your feelings are hurt over this ruling. Maybe you can sue the judges on the grounds of hurt feelings. Good luck. If it doesn't work (I'm guessing it wouldn't), then maybe you should accept that a hate crime involves more than just "hurt feelings".
|
|
|
Post by thorshairspray on Mar 12, 2017 15:54:17 GMT
So "hurt feelings" 12 months in prison Actual financial loss and deprivation of property, six months in prison. Yes. I still fail to see the problem. The UK legal system has apparently ruled that a hate crime is to be punished more severely than a car theft. You may not like it, but that's the way it is. If you consider this a problem, then I'm guessing your feelings are hurt over this ruling. Maybe you can sue the judges on the grounds of hurt feelings. Good luck. If it doesn't work (I'm guessing it wouldn't), then maybe you should accept that a hate crime involves more than just "hurt feelings". You can consider a thing wrong, without having hurt feelings. Well I can, you apparently not. Why do you think "thats the way it is" is an argument? You realise that that kind of asinine bollocks could be applied to literally anything? Yeah, black people are slaves, You may not like it, but that's the way it is. Yeah, women don't have the vote. You may not like it, but that's the way it is. Yes, I think crimes against a person should be punished more harshly than crimes against groups with no actual victim or actual damage. Superdudes example should be punished more harshly than the mosque bacon nonsense. Did you wish to give a counterpoint? Or are you simply going to continue to argue pointlessly because you don't like me?
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Mar 12, 2017 18:05:01 GMT
You can consider a thing wrong, without having hurt feelings. Only if you can rationally defend why it is wrong. If you can't provide rational arguments on why something is wrong, then you consider it wrong because you feel it is wrong. You realise that that kind of asinine bollocks could be applied to literally anything? Yeah, black people are slaves, You may not like it, but that's the way it is. Yeah, women don't have the vote. You may not like it, but that's the way it is. Where I live black people aren't slaves and women have the right to vote. I can't speak for your country, but the reason there is no slavery or vote discrimination in Germany or other civilized countries is because we have decided on a canon of basic rights that are granted to humans, i.e. rational agents. Since science has determined and confirmed that women and black people are no less rational agents than white men, it follows rationally that they should have the same rights. Yes, I think crimes against a person should be punished more harshly than crimes against groups with no actual victim or actual damage. You have said so multiple times. However, you have not only failed to provide a rational reason why it should be like that, you have also failed to show why this applies in the bacon case. Or do you know that the consequences for the Muslims in question were less severe than the consequences for a person whose car was stolen? Unless you can prove that the person whose car was stolen is worse off than the person whose faith was insulted, you have no case.
|
|
|
Post by thorshairspray on Mar 12, 2017 18:24:55 GMT
Which I've done. My argument is not based on feelings.
But, slavery was abolished and women given the vote before science showed this. So why did the Abolitionists of the 19th century simply adopt your logic of "That is the way it is, you might no like it"?
Except I have given you a reason. Either you're ignoring it or simply don't want to acknowledge it because then you have to explain why it's wrong, which you cannot do without resorting to feelings, thus defeating your own argument. I rather suspect the latter.
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Mar 12, 2017 18:41:28 GMT
My argument is not based on feelings. [...] Except I have given you a reason. Either you're ignoring it or simply don't want to acknowledge it because then you have to explain why it's wrong, which you cannot do without resorting to feelings, thus defeating your own argument. Or maybe because the not based on feelings argument you have supposedly provided does not exist? I read through your older posts on this thread, and the only argument that looked like an argument not based on feelings was on this post: And that is factually wrong. You can determine and quantify the feelings of the victim. If they have PTSD because of the hate crime, a psychologist will find out, and also determine if this trauma will stop them from functioning in a work place. And if it takes two weeks of therapy for them to recover, then the consequences are as bad as for the person who did not have a car for two weeks, before being refunded by the insurance company. Of course, it is possible that a victim of a hate crime will not suffer from PTSD, and has a thick enough skin to continue functioning. But it's also possible that a victim of a car theft has a good insurance, or a second car, and will therefore not have lasting damage from the car theft. The law is there to protect the weaker members of society.
|
|
|
Post by thorshairspray on Mar 12, 2017 21:25:06 GMT
So pointing out actual financial loss and inconvenience is feelings?
Did you just compare a mental disorder to feelings? Jesus Christ......PTSD is not "hurt feelings" and "hurt feelings" are not PTSD.
And what if the car belonged to my now dead wife and its loss caused massive pain to me? We can play hypothetical all day.
Do you have a reason why petty, not damage causing vandalism carries a harsher sentence than car theft?
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Mar 12, 2017 22:00:35 GMT
So pointing out actual financial loss and inconvenience is feelings? Yes. You value financial loss and inconvenience higher than hurt feelings because of a hate crime. So do I, but that is a value statement based on feelings. Other people may see it differently. The lawmakers and law enforcers in the UK for instance. Do you have a reason why petty, not damage causing vandalism carries a harsher sentence than car theft? No. I live in Germany, where you can get up to 10 years for car theft, and up to 5 years for hate speech ("Volksverhetzung"). Germany apparently values cars more than the UK.
|
|
|
Post by thorshairspray on Mar 13, 2017 0:07:38 GMT
So pointing out actual financial loss and inconvenience is feelings? Yes. You value financial loss and inconvenience higher than hurt feelings because of a hate crime. So do I, but that is a value statement based on feelings. Other people may see it differently. The lawmakers and law enforcers in the UK for instance. Do you have a reason why petty, not damage causing vandalism carries a harsher sentence than car theft? No. I live in Germany, where you can get up to 10 years for car theft, and up to 5 years for hate speech ("Volksverhetzung"). Germany apparently values cars more than the UK. So we both agree.....why are you arguing with me then?
|
|
blade
Junior Member
@blade
Posts: 2,005
Likes: 636
|
Post by blade on Mar 13, 2017 1:35:23 GMT
How does someone like the OP function in daily life if he gets that upset over comments someone makes? Does he break down crying if someone calls him a name, and then go to the nearest police station to have that person arrested? Are these the same type of people that need counseling because their candidate didn't become president? [yes that is actually a thing, some people needed counseling because Hillary lost] I'd seriously like to know.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 13, 2017 5:59:48 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Edward-Elizabeth-Hitler on Mar 13, 2017 12:50:10 GMT
Trump has admitted to sexually assaulting women and was accused by a former wife of raping her. What is it about trump that causes you to throw all your supposed "feminist" leanings out the window? When did Trump admit sexually assaulting anyone? This is where you tell me that because they supposedly just "let him" do whatever he wants, it's not sexual assault. Either that or claim it's just "locker room talk".
|
|
|
Post by progressiveelement on Mar 13, 2017 12:53:35 GMT
When did Trump admit sexually assaulting anyone? This is where you tell me that because they supposedly just "let him" do whatever he wants, it's not sexual assault. Either that or claim it's just "locker room talk". Any normal employee would get chucked for saying that. If not beaten senseless.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Mar 13, 2017 14:45:15 GMT
tpfkar I don't mind motivations and the like being considered aggravating factors. The laws should be geared to tamp down that sort of behavior.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Mar 14, 2017 22:43:09 GMT
FYI, hate speech is defined as hate directed towards groups, not individuals. Saying Jews are evil would be hate speech; saying you are evil wouldn't be. You f^cking Jew. If you're expression of hatred toward an individual is based on their being part of a group then that's hate speech as well. Didn't realize I had to spell it out for all the morons who couldn't grasp a simple concept.
|
|
|
Post by thorshairspray on Mar 14, 2017 22:55:55 GMT
When did Trump admit sexually assaulting anyone? This is where you tell me that because they supposedly just "let him" do whatever he wants, it's not sexual assault. Either that or claim it's just "locker room talk". Firstly, it was "locker room talk" Unless you actually think a man would admit to sexual assault in that environment. But no, lets all pretend we've almost never heard anyone of either gender say anything like this and on the few occasions we have it was definitely an admission of sexual assault. Its crass, childish, but it isn't an admission of sexual assault and is probably made up bullshit. Secondly, you are interpreting "They let you" as "They won't do anything"
|
|
|
Post by Edward-Elizabeth-Hitler on Mar 14, 2017 23:28:26 GMT
This is where you tell me that because they supposedly just "let him" do whatever he wants, it's not sexual assault. Either that or claim it's just "locker room talk". Firstly, it was "locker room talk" Unless you actually think a man would admit to sexual assault in that environment. But no, lets all pretend we've almost never heard anyone of either gender say anything like this and on the few occasions we have it was definitely an admission of sexual assault. Its crass, childish, but it isn't an admission of sexual assault and is probably made up bullshit. Secondly, you are interpreting "They let you" as "They won't do anything" Anyone who claims that's "locker room talk" has never been in a locker room.
|
|
|
Post by thorshairspray on Mar 15, 2017 0:41:33 GMT
Firstly, it was "locker room talk" Unless you actually think a man would admit to sexual assault in that environment. But no, lets all pretend we've almost never heard anyone of either gender say anything like this and on the few occasions we have it was definitely an admission of sexual assault. Its crass, childish, but it isn't an admission of sexual assault and is probably made up bullshit. Secondly, you are interpreting "They let you" as "They won't do anything" Anyone who claims that's "locker room talk" has never been in a locker room. Are you going to claim in all honesty that this kind of thing is not banded around by both genders all the time? That men don't brag and lie about what they have and will do to women? And 99% is completely made up bollocks. My reaction to Trump saying this to me would have been "oh, right......" with a mental eyeroll. And shall we also pretend that there aren't women who will let rich and famous people do anything they like? Or is 30 year old Crystal Hefner just really into 90 year men? It's lucky for Hugh how he keeps finding these incredibly attractive young women who are into men that resemble a scrotum with a face drawn on it. The whole thing is pearl clutching nonsense, like when a footballer says "shit" in an interview and every goes into an apology spasm.
|
|
|
Post by awhina on Mar 15, 2017 6:21:12 GMT
Admin ummmm because it is stupid and slanderous? I don't expect intelligent responses from you though. You're wasting your time here, @crypticanomaly. Troll elsewhere. I hear MovieChat is good place for people like you. The irony. He was correct to have no expectations.
|
|
|
Post by awhina on Mar 15, 2017 6:23:19 GMT
I am sad but not surprised that nothing was done about it. I have become pretty disillusioned with this board. Trump has admitted to sexually assaulting women and was accused by a former wife of raping her. What is it about trump that causes you to throw all your supposed "feminist" leanings out the window? Er the fact that allegation is not proof? When has he admitted to assaulting women?
|
|