| | The right to hatePage 3 of 5 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) |
Well, they aren't the ones twisting things and being deceitful to justify hate on this one.
..... explain? | |
|
| The right to hate
Posted: 6/22/2007 7:11:53 PM |
Too sensitive? ...OMG you have got to be kidding !, the pet special interest groups coddled by the left are world reknowned super sensitive cry babies.
I've figured out what you're doing here. Your arguement in this thread have followed a simple pattern.
1. First you complain about something rediculous. "They hate all christians and opress us"
2. We point out that your claim is silly. "Christians make up the majority of the population and have a total near monopoly on the leadership of this country"
3.You reply with some absurd claim that "Well the liberals are the same way but worse11!!!"
You've done this with the "liberals hate more than conservatives" arguement, you've done it with opression, now apparently you're doing it with complaining.
Anyway lets be clear about being TOO sensitive.
Lets be clear about the "left" movement. When Blacks had no freaking rights and were treated as second hand citizens and lynched on a fairly regular basis. They weren't whining, they had a serious grievance. When mathew Shephard was beaten and tortured to death for being gay, the homosexual community may have had point about being the victim of hate crime.
When a white male christian complains that his privilaged position of being able to incite hatred and call for violence against political opponents as a religious "right" being trampled upon. Well thats whining. | |
|
SISL
| | Joined: 2/20/2007
Msg: 53 | |
| The right to hate
Posted: 6/22/2007 7:24:01 PM | Homosexuality (as disgusting as it is) has been around since mankind began. It has never been a serious problem. However, when "Gays" seek to gain recognition AS GAYS---NOT AS JUST OTHER PEOPLE---they invite criticism. When the criticism comes, they have no right to be "offended", they started the mess.
Disagreeing wigth someone's opinion is not "HATE" I disagree with many in this forum, on many issues, but I do not "HATE" them. I reserve my "Hatred" for guys like Hitler, Stalin, Castro, and Bill Clinton. | |
|
late™
| | Joined: 1/9/2005
Msg: 54 | |
| The right to hate
Posted: 6/22/2007 7:42:33 PM | Yes, how hypocritical to be intolerant about, ....intolerance.
....naw, doesn't fly.
Read the bill, esp. the part concerning assault, shooting, you know the oppression stuff. | |
|
| The right to hate
Posted: 6/22/2007 7:53:01 PM |
Homosexuality (as disgusting as it is) has been around since mankind began. It has never been a serious problem. However, when "Gays" seek to gain recognition AS GAYS---NOT AS JUST OTHER PEOPLE---they invite criticism. When the criticism comes, they have no right to be "offended", they started the mess.
This is really deplorable thinking, not to mention completely 100% inacurate. Do you think homosexuals being imprisoned only started after they started identifying themselves as a group? You think brutal discrimination and violence was only directed at them once they started an acceptance movement?
Because hundreds of years of abuse of them have occured, and it certainly predates the gay rights movement.
Disagreeing wigth someone's opinion is not "HATE" I disagree with many in this forum, on many issues, but I do not "HATE" them. I reserve my "Hatred" for guys like Hitler, Stalin, Castro, and Bill Clinton.
Which is fine, the bill only effects you if you are actively attempting to incite violence against them, and violence occures. I.E. Hitler pre-nazi germany calling for the extermination of the Jews at a Nazi party rally, and those Nazi party members going out and smashing Jewish heads.
Not just the smashers get in trouble, but the people giving the orders.
That is total crap ....and hateful ....but I will support your right to voice your opinion
Ahahaha somebody really needs to get a thicker skin if they think somebody who is literally in every advantaged catagory in their country crying about repression is a little absurd is "hateful" | |
|
| The right to hate
Posted: 6/22/2007 7:56:02 PM | Which is fine, the bill only effects you if you are actively attempting to incite violence against them, and violence occures.
I think you are very naive.
Ahahaha somebody really needs to get a thicker skin if they think somebody who is literally in every advantaged catagory in their country crying about repression is a little absurd is "hateful"
What ?? My whole point is that I don't have such a thin skin as to need government to prosecute those who offend me. I could care less if you hate me.
Again , I do not agree with your take on reality.
I do not agree , I am not advantaged at all . Actually I belive it is "special status" groups who have advantage.
By the way , is it only possible to hate when it is directed at those perceived as less advantaged?..I definately disagree there.
You've illustrated the whole problem very nicely....... subjective and selective , politcally correct "hate" only need apply ...a lot like "affirmative action."
| |
|
late™
| | Joined: 1/9/2005
Msg: 57 | |
| The right to hate
Posted: 6/22/2007 8:24:23 PM | Are you equating "assault" and "shooting" with "offend"?
If religious leaders were rallying their followers to "Kill the rednecks!" ...and somebody gets beat up or shot because that group identified them as a "Redneck" no other reason, ....offended?
They have a right to call for the shooting of "Rednecks"?
Sorry, I'm not accountable, I just told them to, I didn't pull the trigger.
What if a religious leader talks followers into hijacking planes and....
Do you even want to go there?
No reason to keep Chuckie Manson in jail is there?
He didn't actually kill anybody.... | |
|
| The right to hate
Posted: 6/22/2007 8:35:20 PM | Is redkneck a racial slur ? ...I believe it is.
Actually , "liberals" incite violence on a group : whites , like no other .
Do you think that demonising a group 24/7 as "opressors" has not manifested itself in violence ? ...I believe it has on a massive scale and will continue to do so .
Not to worry ...."liberals" will never be charged . Feel free to hate and incite .
What if a religious leader talks followers into hijacking planes and....
Ironic example ....ummm, nevermind.
| |
|
late™
| | Joined: 1/9/2005
Msg: 59 | |
| The right to hate
Posted: 6/22/2007 8:53:56 PM | Is redkneck a racial slur ? ...I believe it is.
Uh, if I didn't then I wouldn't have used it as an epithet in the example.
Do you think that demonising a group 24/7 as "opressors" has not manifested itself in violence ?
I think it's actually idiotic to criticize a "label", it's much more effective to outline the injustice of actions, which is probably why you don't see me attacking a "group", it's much easier and more effective to attack the "idea" of oppresion by understanding its definition.
Not to worry ...."liberals" will never be charged . Feel free to hate and incite .
See? ...ineffective, you're left with three fingers pointing your way. | |
|
| The right to hate
Posted: 6/22/2007 9:00:50 PM | What thread are you on??
I don't agree ....
I was very effective . I clearly showed the double standards and the inherint problems produced with any sort of thought crime legislation.
I oppose them , simple as that. | |
|
late™
| | Joined: 1/9/2005
Msg: 61 | |
| The right to hate
Posted: 6/22/2007 9:09:10 PM | What thread are you on??
One where someone is basing their argument on "name-calling" by "name-calling" and criticizing this group for criticizing groups, ....what's the word for this again?
I don't agree ....
Nope, and you've even identified the "they" by "label" that you're accusing of labeling, ....the irony is exquisite.
I oppose them , simple as that
 ...."them"
Whereas, I oppose the idea of inciting anybody to assault, shoot, or maim ANY marginalized "group", ....as being criminally oppressive (idea), and infringing on a persons right to NOT be beaten, shoot, maimed, ....you know, as outlined by the bill?
marginalize
verb
marginalize, marginalise
- relegate to a lower or outer edge, as of specific groups of people; "We must not marginalize the poor in our society" | |
|
| The right to hate
Posted: 6/22/2007 9:21:40 PM | So cedar is still working on the concept of the vast liberal conspiracy mode of thought???? I love eugenics... UGH... Well late I tried reason back when we were talking about biology.. I'm leaving the politics to you. Good luck.
PS Cedar here's a little bit of advice... Try and realize that what all those conservative thinkers you like to mention are really doing is conserving thought... by NOT thinking! | |
|
| The right to hate
Posted: 6/22/2007 9:23:53 PM | Whereas, I oppose the idea of inciting anybody to assault, shoot, or maim ANY marginalized "group", ....as being criminally oppresive (idea), and infringing on a persons right to NOT be beaten, shoot, maimed, ....you know, as outlined by the bill?
Of course , as I and most anyone does.
It's the method of ridding society of this criminality that is in question.
I believe that "hate" crime legislation is ripe for political exploitation , very dangerous to our freedoms , inherintly problematic but most of all , it will be totally ineffective ..in fact it might be counter-productive . | |
|
| The right to hate
Posted: 6/22/2007 9:40:36 PM | Fireknight... don't bother making stuff up and telling me what I think.
You fabricate enough as it is....
I wish you would conserve some of your posts!
Like I said before , you're a real expert !.....an expert at making long winded bunk posts.
Take care my expert buddy. | |
|
late™
| | Joined: 1/9/2005
Msg: 65 | |
| The right to hate
Posted: 6/22/2007 9:46:25 PM | You see?
This is the "ad hominem" style of discourse you are complaining about, attack the message, not the messenger is especially appropriate when accusing others of the very thing. To do otherwise only illustrates a contradiction, and paints one a hypocrite.
Note, this ^^^ is NOT name-calling, it's identifying a behaviour, an action, an "idea", ...it's not up to me which side of its definition one decides to jump into. | |
|
| The right to hate
Posted: 6/22/2007 9:57:23 PM | I guess that's the point ....I support everyone's freedom to name call and criticise and even to "hate" ...it's a necessary evil with freedom. No hypocrisy there.
I would say the hypocrisy lies with those who want to fight intolerance with intolerance....and then to pride themselves on their "tolerance"
Now that is hypocritical .
Freedom is something you can have but only if you are willing to give. | |
|
late™
| | Joined: 1/9/2005
Msg: 67 | |
| The right to hate
Posted: 6/22/2007 10:10:09 PM |
I support everyone's freedom to name call and criticise and even to "hate"
And to incite an assault, shooting, etc. on the basis of identity (as defined in the bill)?
What about if it leads to mass murder, ...still okay to incite?
SO if one is involved in the planning of a terrorist attack by explicitly telling others to commit it against people based on their identity as a group, ...no problem?
Or, is a hate crime not a hate crime if it's only one or two at a time? | |
|
| The right to hate
Posted: 6/22/2007 10:13:36 PM | Any of those crimes are severely punishable under the law as it is....as they should be.
There is no need for "special" crimes or "special" victims ....we are all equals under the law.....as we should be.
And to incite an assault, shooting, etc. on the basis of identity
Unfortunatey , yes that is a necessary evil with freedom....I trust that people would not act on this sort of incitement .I guess I have more faith in people in general.
But most of all .... I don't think legislation will be effective . Like I said it may well be counter- productive.I do think it's just too slippery a slope when you start defining what was "incitement" and also you produce a special protected class as a result.
Mass murder ?....historically , that's what big left wing government does well.... correct? | |
|
| The right to hate
Posted: 6/22/2007 10:28:09 PM | Any of those crimes are severely punishable under the law as it is....as they should be.
There is no need for "special" crimes or "special" victims ....we are all equals under the law.....as we should be.
-------------------------------
Senior's and mentally retarded ?
Too many laws?
It wasn't special when the local Police in Miss, members of the KKK, took blacks beat them tied them and pitched them in the Miss river to drown ? It has taken 50 years? Was this a hate crime? | |
|
| The right to hate
Posted: 6/22/2007 10:46:20 PM | ^
Ahhhh ...more white hatred .....whites are as tolerant and just and good a people as you will find in the entire world.
No race has a monopoly on "hate" or crime... historical or otherwise...that is for sure. | |
|
late™
| | Joined: 1/9/2005
Msg: 71 | |
| The right to hate
Posted: 6/22/2007 10:52:07 PM | Any of those crimes are severely punishable under the law as it is....as they should be.
There is no need for "special" crimes or "special" victims ....we are all equals under the law.....as we should be.
Nope, wrong, ... those who incite violence against some identifiable "groups" are not held to the same accountability as the "Terrorist", y'know, ...the ones that changed the way the executive branch treats your constitution?
you produce a special protected class as a result.
You make it a more heinous crime to incite violence against a group for no other reason than identity, ...y'know, like the Nazis did with Jews, Gypsies, Homosexuals, et al.... chosing a victim(s) this way, is a greater crime against humanity.
Mass murder ?....historically , that's what big left wing government does well.... correct?
"There you go again..."
-R. Reagan | |
|
| The right to hate
Posted: 6/22/2007 10:55:56 PM | Mass murder ?....historically , that's what big left wing government does well.... correct?
What do you mean? Is it not true that socialist government are responsible for 10's of millions of murders or more ? .....that fact is applicable to this arguement ..is it not? | |
|
| The right to hate
Posted: 6/22/2007 11:00:12 PM | Nope, wrong, ... those who incite violence against some identifiable "groups" are not held to the same accountability as the "Terrorist", y'know, ...the ones that changed the way the executive branch treats your constitution?
I am very much opposed to the so called "war on terror" and it's use to empower government.
ps. I'm Canadian .
We have an entity called " the human rights commision " never has there been such politcised and extra judicial an outfit as this one. It's bit of a kagaroo court when in session...
In a recent human rights decision it was ruled that "truth is not a defense" it's only that an identifiable group was offended . Conservative groups can be prosecuted for offending minorities ...and it does not matter if the crticism is true!!
Just being charged can bankrupt a person or a political group....It's not very fair at all. | |
|
| The right to hate
Posted: 6/23/2007 8:55:18 AM | OK,so the bill is supposed to be only concerned with those inciting violence.Fair enough,in theory anyway.Trouble is,not everything in this world operates in reality the same way it's supposed to in theory.
Let's say a group of "good ole boys" from Landview Baptist Church in Hoboken,Georgia go out and beat up a gay man.Does this mean they can prosecute the pastor becaue he teaches the Biblically literal perspective that homosexuality is a sin?Where do you draw the line on the pastor's doctrine and what he actually ordered?How would you define that?Now if there is proof that the pastor actually said things like,"Gays are an abomination and should be destroyed,now go out and kill a queer for Jesus!"then,yes,he incited orders for violence.Yet if he just said,"Homosexuality is a sin and an illness that can be cured by salvation,and he went on to quote scriptures that supported that claim,then how is that an incitement for violence?Most of the pastors I know say they love the soul of a homosexual as much as they love themselves,as it says in their Bible.If they incite their parishoners to do anything,it's to pray for and witness to the homosexual for their conversion.
I can see potential for this type of legislation to be seriously abused by liberal special interest groups,and therefore I think my pastor friend who sent this to me has a reason to be concerned.
By the way,as a Libertarian,I hate conservative radicals and liberal radicals equally. | |
|
| The right to hate
Posted: 6/23/2007 10:45:29 AM | Lets get back to the point. This Bill adds sexual orientation to already existing Hate Crime laws. If you're concerned that this will be used to attack pastors, then you should be able to show where the laws now have been used to stifle free speech.
There are lots of racists out there for instance who haven't been prosecuted for expressing their opinions publicly. It's only when there's violence based on race that this is used. And they don't prosecute the Klan, Aryan Supremacy groups or anyone else when that happens. There are record labels devoted to preaching the doctrine of Aryan supremacy with really vicious lyrics that are free to spread their message of hate. The existing laws have never stopped them, so I don't see how a pastor would be concerned unless he actively incited his congregation to head into the Castro with assault weapons. | |
|
Home
login 
