Should Hate Be Outlawed?

[buckethead]

I would seem based on "Origin of the Species" that this would be a suicidal law. As the law of nature would be survival of the fittest assuring evolution of only the finest genes. Thus an argument can be made that Adolph Hitler, or Stalin's purges were actually a performance of God's work. In order as a people to continue to evolve towards immortals we must, needs be, HATE anything less then excellence.

OCKLAWAHA

That is exactly why we need hate legislation NOW!

Look at the pictures! That was more than murder! It was Hate Murder!

You see, I don't so much mind being murdered for what I have or what I do, but if someone murders me out of hate, that is just unnaccepteble.

[JC]

<sarcasm>

I would seem based on "Origin of the Species" that this would be a suicidal law. As the law of nature would be survival of the fittest assuring evolution of only the finest genes. Thus an argument can be made that Adolph Hitler, or Stalin's purges were actually a performance of God's work. In order as a people to continue to evolve towards immortals we must, needs be, HATE anything less then excellence.

OCKLAWAHA

That is exactly why we need hate legislation NOW!

Look at the pictures! That was more than murder! It was Hate Murder!

You see, I don't so much mind being murdered for what I have or what I do, but if someone murders me out of hate, that is just unnaccepteble.

</sarcasm>

I would seem based on "Origin of the Species" that this would be a suicidal law. As the law of nature would be survival of the fittest assuring evolution of only the finest genes. Thus an argument can be made that Adolph Hitler, or Stalin's purges were actually a performance of God's work. In order as a people to continue to evolve towards immortals we must, needs be, HATE anything less then excellence.

OCKLAWAHA

You do realize you are using part of the same logic these fucking lunatics used to justify their heinous acts?  I have not read The Origin Of Species or The Voyage Of The Beagle, I have tried and they sit on my shelf but they don't pull me in.  Someone (other than the person who has attempted to make an argument for some of the most horrible behavior in human history) correct me if I am wrong, doesn't "survival of the fittest" among the animal kingdom depend on selective breeding, not the extermination of groups of animals unlike the majority?  I am also curious how god and Darwin fit together?  I would like to hear your entire theory.

[Sportmotor]

Its funny to see a bunch of straight white people debate a topic like this!  Seriously, its amusing...

Someone want to correct this?

[JC]

Its funny to see a bunch of straight white people debate a topic like this!  Seriously, its amusing...

Someone want to correct this?

Wishful thinking?

[JagFan07]

I will no longer weigh in on this conversation. Seeing as I am part of the "straight white people" crowd, I will never be able to understand hate.

OK, I lied, I will still weigh in.

[buckethead]

Its funny to see a bunch of straight white people debate a topic like this!  Seriously, its amusing...

Someone want to correct this?

Wishful thinking?

I do believe at leas one of the participants within this thread is gay. Others might be of different racial origin.

In fact, we are all most likely of mixed races, as well as being (partly) gay: According to science and Captain Steve Zissou.

[JagFan07]

Its funny to see a bunch of straight white people debate a topic like this!  Seriously, its amusing...

Someone want to correct this?

Wishful thinking?

I do believe at leas one of the participants within this thread is gay. Others might be of different racial origin.

In fact, we are all most likely of mixed races, as well as being (partly) gay: According to science and Captain Steve Zissou.

Its funny to see a bunch of straight white people debate a topic like this!  Seriously, its amusing...

Wishful thinking?

I do believe at leas one of the participants within this thread is gay. Others might be of different racial origin.

In fact, we are all most likely of mixed races, as well as being (partly) gay: According to science and Captain Steve Zissou.

As Bill Murray said in Stripes:

We're not Watusi.
We're not Spartans.  
                 
We're Americans.
With a capital A, huh?  
                 
You know what that means?                  
Do you? That means
that our forefathers...  
                 
...were kicked out of every
decent country in the world.  
                 
We are the wretched refuse.  
We're the underdog.
We're mutts.

[finehoe]

Hate is a motive, not a crime.

And motivation is often a consideration when punishment for a crime is dispensed.  How is this different?

[Cricket]

Our constitution protects hate, or at least the expression of hate (freedom of expression), therefore to say that a crime is exacerbated when it is motivated by hate is to ignore the protection that the constitution grants for the motivation in the first place.

[buckethead]

If premeditation is a motive, I suppose.

If the motive is self defense, I would see logic in consideration.

If a murderer wanted my stash of crystal meth, was the motive or if he hated me because I am beautiful, seems to me to be worth about the same penalty, and of little difference in the overall picture.

I suppose that my being beautiful should afford me a bit of "extra" governmetal and regulatory protection against being harmed.

[finehoe]

Our constitution protects hate, or at least the expression of hate (freedom of expression), therefore to say that a crime is exacerbated when it is motivated by hate is to ignore the protection that the constitution grants for the motivation in the first place.

The Supreme Court disagrees:

In Wisconsin v. Mitchell (1993), the Court upheld, against a First Amendment challenge, a state statute that increased a defendant's punishment for battery because he selected his victim on the basis of the victim's race. In a unanimous opinion the Court rejected the defendant's argument, adopted by the lower court, that the penalty enhancement represented punishment for bigoted thought. The state could legitimately punish criminal conduct motivated by bias more than the same criminal conduct without such motivation because of the greater harm likely to flow from the former.

[Cricket]

If a murderer wanted my stash of crystal meth, was the motive or if he hated me because I am beautiful, seems to me to be worth about the same penalty, and of little difference in the overall picture.

I suppose that my being beautiful should afford me a bit of "extra" governmetal and regulatory protection against being harmed.

That would be a crime based either on fits of jealousy or just a case of astigmatism.  

[Cricket]

I guess its like the additional charge of terrorism instead of simple arson or murder.

... which is in itself an oxymoron.

[Bostech]

We should just call it H-word.

[NotNow]

The problem with this line of thinking is that you are allowing the state to decide what is "hate" and what is not.  The state can decide that "only" X Americans deserve "extra protection" while Y Americans do not.  Not to mention the "slippery slope".  Once we allow this type of classification of crimes, what will prevent the expansion of the concept?  Could some criminals be released because of emotion?  If emotion enhances a crime, can it mitigate it as well?  

At the risk of sounding like a straight white man, perhaps we should contemplate 200 years of human jurisprudence before we decide we have a better idea.