With the fairly recent concoction of penalties for hate crimes being proposed and implimented, the larger question remains: Should hate be outlawed?
Let's say for the sake of discussion hate based upon recial prejudice and/or bigotry.
Should it be outlawed?
Yes. Although hate is human nature so in doing so you would be committing a even larger crime against humanity.
Quote from: buckethead on April 20, 2010, 05:45:56 PM
With the fairly recent concoction of penalties for hate crimes being proposed and implimented, the larger question remains: Should hate be outlawed?
Let's say for the sake of discussion hate based upon recial prejudice and/or bigotry.
Should it be outlawed?
What constitutes 'hate'... saying you 'hate someone' or telling someone you 'hate' them?
I don't think you can outlaw a feeling.
Uh Oh!!! The thought police are out to get ya!!
Hate crimes (as I understand the concept) are those motivated by hate. If you kill someone for the sake of taking whatever money or valuables they might have at the time, it would not be a hate crime.
If you kill someone because they were a different color than you, then it is a hate crime, and clearly deserves a greater punishment. (at least that seems to be the reasoning behind hate crime legislation)
Why would we not try to prevent these hateful acts by legislating hate out of existence?
Quote from: buckethead on April 20, 2010, 07:01:30 PM
Hate crimes (as I understand the concept) are those motivated by hate. If you kill someone for the sake of taking whatever money or valuables they might have at the time, it would not be a hate crime.
If you kill someone because they were a different color than you, then it is a hate crime, and clearly deserves a greater punishment. (at least that seems to be the reasoning behind hate crime legislation)
Why would we not try to prevent these hateful acts by legislating hate out of existence?
The hate is not the crime, the killing was the crime. Hate just changed the category of the crime. A racist is not a criminal unless he breaks a law.
Imagine the implications. You say "I hate Obama". Innocent enough, but wait that's hate, lock em up.
Once again, we claim to see into the heart of another. This is not possible, and any such law is inevitably unevenly applied. Hate is a motive, not a crime.
"Hatespeech" and other such terms are Orwellian IMHO.
You cant infringe on someones freedom of speech if they are screaming hate BS. That would start down a very wicked path.
Bunch of haters!
I say we need hate legislation and we need it now!
So you are hating on the haters Bucket? :P
Not hating.....
REGULATING!
Gonna spend all night REGULATING! yourself? :D
Its funny to see a bunch of straight white people debate a topic like this! Seriously, its amusing...
You know what, I wasn't really going to get involved in this discussion but I just cant pass the bait up.
(http://blueollie.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/lynching.jpg)
I can find many more sobering examples of Americas less than stellar record when it comes to the tyranny of the majority terrorizing a minority.
Of course it changes nothing for the victim to have their killer prosecuted for a hate crime, what it does do though, is make a statement that we as a society will not tolerate the dragging of an elderly black man behind a pickup truck for the crime of being black.
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
Quote from: Ocklawaha on April 21, 2010, 01:06:37 AM
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>
Quote from: buckethead on April 21, 2010, 05:29:39 AM
Quote from: Ocklawaha on April 21, 2010, 01:06:37 AM
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>
Quote from: Ocklawaha on April 21, 2010, 01:06:37 AM
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.
Quote from: JC on April 21, 2010, 12:11:36 AM
Its funny to see a bunch of straight white people debate a topic like this! Seriously, its amusing...
Someone want to correct this?
Quote from: Sportmotor on April 21, 2010, 08:45:25 AM
Quote from: JC on April 21, 2010, 12:11:36 AM
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 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.
Quote from: JC on April 21, 2010, 08:47:55 AM
Quote from: Sportmotor on April 21, 2010, 08:45:25 AM
Quote from: JC on April 21, 2010, 12:11:36 AM
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.
Quote from: buckethead on April 21, 2010, 09:57:25 AM
Quote from: JC on April 21, 2010, 08:47:55 AM
Quote from: Sportmotor on April 21, 2010, 08:45:25 AM
Quote from: JC on April 21, 2010, 12:11:36 AM
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.
Quote from: buckethead on April 21, 2010, 09:57:25 AM
Quote from: JC on April 21, 2010, 08:47:55 AM
Quote from: Sportmotor on April 21, 2010, 08:45:25 AM
Quote from: JC on April 21, 2010, 12:11:36 AM
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.
Quote from: NotNow on April 20, 2010, 07:11:50 PM
Hate is a motive, not a crime.
And motivation is often a consideration when punishment for a crime is dispensed. How is this different?
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.
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.
Quote from: Cricket on April 21, 2010, 10:22:39 AM
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.
Quote from: buckethead on April 21, 2010, 10:26:12 AM
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. ;D
Quote from: stephendare on April 21, 2010, 10:38:42 AM
I guess its like the additional charge of terrorism instead of simple arson or murder.
... which is in itself an oxymoron.
We should just call it H-word.
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.
Quote from: NotNow on April 21, 2010, 12:53:07 PM
The state can decide that "only" X Americans deserve "extra protection" while Y Americans do not.
How do you figure? If you enact extra penalties on crimes committed based on race, how is anyone left out?
I'm guessing this thread was started on yesterday's holiday, 4/20 :)
Buckethead does not endulge in extra-herbal activities.
Let's talk a bit about Women's Rights.
Do women have a different set of rights than men? Practically? Legally?
Should they? Does the constitution allow for this?
Quote from: finehoe on April 21, 2010, 01:10:12 PM
Quote from: NotNow on April 21, 2010, 12:53:07 PM
The state can decide that "only" X Americans deserve "extra protection" while Y Americans do not.
How do you figure? If you enact extra penalties on crimes committed based on race, how is anyone left out?
It only matters if the penalty varies from race to race, which in the makeup of our society, it might.
The current hate laws are applied unevenly. The question is "who gets to decide what is hate?".
I hate that.
Thoughts, feelings and speech should not be outlawed. Freedom to think, feel and speak are the most basic of human rights.
Quote from: buckethead on April 21, 2010, 02:30:36 PM
Buckethead does not endulge in extra-herbal activities.
Let's talk a bit about Women's Rights.
Do women have a different set of rights than men? Practically? Legally?
Should they? Does the constitution allow for this?
Yes, women have a different set of rights than men, just check out the salary statistics.
Women pay more for health care.
Their reproductive choices are limited AND check the statistics comparing the number of single fathers to single mothers.
Quote from: urbanlibertarian on April 21, 2010, 08:11:42 PM
Thoughts, feelings and speech should not be outlawed. Freedom to think, feel and speak are the most basic of human rights.
Thank gods you sorted that out for us! Very insightful commentary.
Quote from: JC on April 21, 2010, 08:02:18 AM
<sarcasm>
Quote from: buckethead on April 21, 2010, 05:29:39 AM
That is exactly why we need hate legislation NOW!
Look at the pictures! That was more than murder! It was Hate Murder!
Quote from: Ocklawaha on April 21, 2010, 01:06:37 AM
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.
[/quote]
Sure am... The logic of fucking lunatics that NEARLY CONQUERED THE WORLD! It was not me by the way, that said Hitler was doing Gods work (in following Darwin and eliminating the weaker races or peoples) it was the Pope. So did the Pope hate? Hate Jews? Christ Killers? Did the Pope know according to the Bible, we are all responsible for the death of Christ? Was this? Is this HATE?
Is HATE in the eye's of the beholder?
For example, ask any African American if their ancestors were "horse whipped" and you'll almost certainly get a positive response.
Ask why? Why were they whipped?
H A T E !! Is the universal and agreed on modern politically correct answer, the one found even in today's textbooks.
Reality Check?
Should we "let the cat out of the bag?" You see whipping with the cat-o-nine tails was so common among Anglo-Saxon peoples that the expression (from the Royal Navy) is part of our language. You see it wasn't a "beat a black" thing, in fact though it was unjustly applied by overseers and slave masters (not just in the South), it probably landed on thousands more white backs. What DO we do with a drunken sailor? "Give him a taste of the captains daughter..." In other words, strip him naked, strap him over a cannon (the daughter) and beat the shit out of him. So how common was this among whites? Let's look at just ONE town, In 1880, the Cambridge school board found out that out of the 12,973 boys attending the all boy's grammar school, 10,973 incidents of corporal punishment were recorded. Were these all just? If unjust were they HATE? Were they love?
10,973 cases of HATE against children in a single town, in a single year seems a bit severe.
So who gets to decide if the punishment is hate or justice? Then who get's to punish who for the act of hate? Wouldn't this just be revenge, itself an act of hate?
Lastly, how Darwin and God fit together is interesting, you must understand that Charles Darwin was a Christian, and his now accepted Scientific FACT, was a THEORY. This is a question we have probably all pondered at some point or another, how did we get here? Darwin's theory was that God set in motion the star stuff that contained the necessary elements for life, and the evolution of new and diverse life forms, and devolution into lesser life forms or extinction. Aside from Judas and Nero and a handful of villain's, probably no one that ever lived has been more hated the Charles Darwin.
When they outlaw hate, how long until they outlaw dislike? disgust? or the simple frown?OCKLAWAHA
It's impossible to outlaw a natural human emotion Ock.
Quote
Quote from: Ocklawaha on April 22, 2010, 12:01:12 AM
Quote from: JC on April 21, 2010, 08:02:18 AM
<sarcasm>
Quote from: buckethead on April 21, 2010, 05:29:39 AM
That is exactly why we need hate legislation NOW!
Look at the pictures! That was more than murder! It was Hate Murder!
Quote from: Ocklawaha on April 21, 2010, 01:06:37 AM
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.
Sure am... The logic of fucking lunatics that NEARLY CONQUERED THE WORLD! It was not me by the way, that said Hitler was doing Gods work (in following Darwin and eliminating the weaker races or peoples) it was the Pope. So did the Pope hate? Hate Jews? Christ Killers? Did the Pope know according to the Bible, we are all responsible for the death of Christ? Was this? Is this HATE?
Is HATE in the eye's of the beholder?
For example, ask any African American if their ancestors were "horse whipped" and you'll almost certainly get a positive response.
Ask why? Why were they whipped?
H A T E !! Is the universal and agreed on modern politically correct answer, the one found even in today's textbooks.
Reality Check?
Should we "let the cat out of the bag?" You see whipping with the cat-o-nine tails was so common among Anglo-Saxon peoples that the expression (from the Royal Navy) is part of our language. You see it wasn't a "beat a black" thing, in fact though it was unjustly applied by overseers and slave masters (not just in the South), it probably landed on thousands more white backs. What DO we do with a drunken sailor? "Give him a taste of the captains daughter..." In other words, strip him naked, strap him over a cannon (the daughter) and beat the shit out of him. So how common was this among whites? Let's look at just ONE town, In 1880, the Cambridge school board found out that out of the 12,973 boys attending the all boy's grammar school, 10,973 incidents of corporal punishment were recorded. Were these all just? If unjust were they HATE? Were they love?
10,973 cases of HATE against children in a single town, in a single year seems a bit severe.
So who gets to decide if the punishment is hate or justice? Then who get's to punish who for the act of hate? Wouldn't this just be revenge, itself an act of hate?
Lastly, how Darwin and God fit together is interesting, you must understand that Charles Darwin was a Christian, and his now accepted Scientific FACT, was a THEORY. This is a question we have probably all pondered at some point or another, how did we get here? Darwin's theory was that God set in motion the star stuff that contained the necessary elements for life, and the evolution of new and diverse life forms, and devolution into lesser life forms or extinction. Aside from Judas and Nero and a handful of villain's, probably no one that ever lived has been more hated the Charles Darwin.
When they outlaw hate, how long until they outlaw dislike? disgust? or the simple frown?
OCKLAWAHA
Let the cat out of the bag means to give up information or tell a secret, it has nothing to do with beating people.
Hate crimes laws do not outlaw hate, duh, I was suspecting that I needed to say that but was hoping I didn't. It doesn't outlaw hate any more than laws against murdering people outlaws fantasizing about murdering people.
So, uh, murder should be legal so they cant potentially outlaw thinking about murder, give me a break!
Corporal punishment was cruel, but it was done because it was part of what was considered best practices of discipline at the time. It was not done to subjugate a race of people to deny them their basic human rights, everyone of those children all grew up to be members of white society, which, due to hate, ignorance and greed, blacks were never part of.
I am done talking to you about this, your world view is, in a word wacky, and we will never see eye to eye on anything!
http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/let-the-cat-out-of-the-bag.html
I am not one to challenge Ock's claims of a historical nature.
Word is, he was there.
Quote from: JC on April 21, 2010, 12:11:36 AM
Its funny to see a bunch of straight white people debate a topic like this! Seriously, its amusing...
We are here to amuse you ;)
Quote from: JC on April 21, 2010, 08:33:09 PM
Yes, women have a different set of rights than men, just check out the salary statistics. I think you confuse statistics with rights.
Women pay more for health care. You mean women consume more health care?
Their reproductive choices are limited AND check the statistics comparing the number of single fathers to single mothers. Men's reproductive rights are almost exclusively controlled by women.
Thank gods you sorted that out for us! Very insightful commentary. QuoteUL said it shortly and sweetly, and right on the money. Do you wish to have emotions regulated by law?
No, but ignorance should be outlawed.
Quote from: buckethead on April 22, 2010, 06:50:43 AM
http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/let-the-cat-out-of-the-bag.html
I am not one to challenge Ock's claims of a historical nature.
Word is, he was there.
However did you know buckethead? Wow!!
Give yourself an A+ from DOC OCK, you are the only one that caught the double meaning... Revealing the "secret" that the "cat" in question was used on the bare backs and butt's of thousands if not millions of non-African's before it was ever used on a African American. Not to say right or wrong, just a fact, it was a "white mans" invention to met out punishment to those who had broken the law. As for the bag, it held the cat o nine tails and in fact the cat itself was often braided by the one who would get the stripes. If the cat's knots failed, they doubled the punishment, or worse!
Meanwhile your source sort of failed you on the bag part. The Cat-o-nine-tails was indeed kept in a red baize bag, aboard all warships and merchantmen of the English Empire. The condemned would be forced to hold the bag while the charges and number of lashes was announced. The Captain then gave an order, "Boatswain's mate, do your duty." At which point the prisoner opened the bag and the cat was removed, the poor victim was tied fast to the main mast, yard arm, or across the captains daughter... IE: a cannon. I have no doubt that this expression originated with the Royal Navy, as by 1715, pirates around the world were using the term, as were the ships of the mogul of India, and throughout the mid east.
Sadly JC didn't understand that (as usual) I was tossing history, and theory together in some very abstract thoughts. He apparently thought we were arguing! I'm just using the naval term "FIRE FOR EFFECT" to launch some various new avenues of thinking this through. Sorry if your offended by the Ancient One JC, no harm intended.
OCKLAWAHA
So why isn't this a "Hate Crime"?
http://www.clarionledger.com/article/20100424/NEWS/4240339/1001 (http://www.clarionledger.com/article/20100424/NEWS/4240339/1001)
QuoteMadison-Rankin District Attorney Michael Guest said Friday he doesn't expect charges to be upgraded against the man accused of killing white supremacist Richard Barrett.
Neither Guest nor Rankin County Sheriff Ronnie Pennington would discuss a possible motive in the case.
Vincent McGee, 22, a state inmate on supervised release, will make his first court appearance Monday on charges of murder and first-degree arson.
Meanwhile, three others are charged as accessories after the fact in connection with Barrett's homicide.
Barrett's body was found in his Pearl-area home Thursday. He had been severely burned, beaten and stabbed, Pennington said.
McGee was charged a few hours after Barrett's body was discovered. McGee and Barrett lived three houses apart on East Petros Road in the Monterey community.
On Friday, McGee's stepfather, Alfred Lewis, 42, and friends Michael Dent, 22, and Vickie Dent, 38, were arrested as accessories. The Dents, mother and son, also were charged with arson.
All three are expected to have initial court appearances Monday or Tuesday in Rankin County Court.
McGee's family members say the suspect and Barrett knew one another because McGee had done yard work twice for him.
"He was unhappy with pay both times," Lewis said.
Lewis said his stepson once worked a full day for Barrett, scraping paint off a home near Ross Barnett Reservoir for $1 and a bowl of spaghetti, when he was 17.
Still, after getting out of prison two months ago, McGee decided to work for Barrett again - this time at a home in Utica. He worked six hours and was paid only $26, according to Lewis.
Lewis said McGee was dropped off by Barrett about 6 p.m. Wednesday.
Police believe McGee returned to Barrett's residence later that night.
Guest said police believe the Dents drove McGee there.
Neighbors say Barrett, 67, kept to himself. They say he was rarely home, and when he was, he was mowing his lawn or riding his bicycle up and down the rural road.
"He never associated with anyone around him - no black people," neighbor Henderson Craig said. "Everyone knew what he stood for, and that didn't bother us."
Barrett, a lawyer and decorated Vietnam War veteran, headed the Nationalist Movement - a white supremacist organization from which he tried to rally support for causes ranging from racial segregation to fighting for symbols such as the Confederate flag.
McGee is an African American with a list of run-ins with law enforcement.
On Feb. 23, McGee was released early from prison after serving more than four years for assaulting law enforcement officers and grand larceny.
He was charged in October 2005 with two counts of simple assault on law officers.
McGee hit two officers at the juvenile detention center and threatened them, according to an account from the Rankin County Sheriff's Department. The summary says McGee became unruly in his cell. He was supposed to be released that day, but no one had picked him up.
"Upon opening the cell door, McGee came out of the cell and began to hit both officer(s) with his fist. Because of his behavior, McGee was placed under arrest and charged with two counts of assault on a police officer.
"During this time, McGee threatened both officer(s) and promised them a shot to the head upon his release from jail," the report said.
Why McGee was in jail at the time was not explained. Juvenile records are not public.
In 2007, he was charged with grand larceny.
McGee's court-appointed attorney on the simple assault charge, Dan Duggan, is now an assistant district attorney.
Guest said Friday he sees no conflict with his office prosecuting the case.
"We routinely prosecute new cases where the defendants were represented by a public defender who is now on my staff," Guest said.
If convicted, McGee will face a maximum life in prison.
The maximum charge for accessory after the fact is five years. The maximum penalty for arson is 20 years .
Quote from: JagFan07 on April 25, 2010, 08:18:13 AM
So why isn't this a "Hate Crime"?
Where does it say he was killed because of his race?
Is race the only consideration for hate?
"He had been severely burned, beaten and stabbed"
Sounds like love to me.
Quote from: JagFan07 on April 25, 2010, 08:18:13 AM
So why isn't this a "Hate Crime"?
Oooh, oooh, I know "reverse racism."
Is reverse racism where a person (of any particular race) considers him/herself to be genetically superior to members of his own race?
Is it when a person considers his/her own race genetically inferior?
Please clarify.
Actually not, just an example of why a crime is a crime, no matter who it is perpetrated on. Oh, but I shouldn't have an opinion because as you said I am a "straight white male".
Quote from: JagFan07 on April 25, 2010, 10:42:05 AM
Actually not, just an example of why a crime is a crime, no matter who it is perpetrated on. Oh, but I shouldn't have an opinion because as you said I am a "straight white male".
Not all crimes are equal, there are always mitigating factors.
I never said straight white men should not be INCLUDED in a discussion but until your human rights are legally stripped away and your ass is beaten by white cops and chewed upon by their dogs your opinion means much less than the opinions of those who have experienced said ass chewing and beating and rights stripping!
(http://mulattodiaries.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/anti-civil-rights.jpg)
(http://blog.al.com/jkennedy/2008/08/stroll.jpg)
(http://www.learnnc.org/lp/media/uploads/2009/10/anit-civilrights1.jpg)
Show me an example in the US, of an encompassing Black, Female or Gay power structure violating the rights of a white man. Ok, that's a rhetorical question because it doesn't exist! But all the pieces are still in place and often executed for there to be some serious civil rights violations, just like this so-called "driving while Hispanic" law in Arizona.
Sorry Buckethead, I should have said "reverse discrimination" not "reverse racism" my bad!
I would think a person beating, bludgeoning, burning another person to death constitutes a heinous act by a "power structure".
I get that you don't like injustice. I find it admirable.
You seem to be selective in which injustices are less unjust. Murder is murder.
Quote from: buckethead on April 25, 2010, 02:29:09 PM
I would think a person beating, bludgeoning, burning another person to death constitutes a heinous act by a "power structure".
I get that you don't like injustice. I find it admirable.
You seem to be selective in which injustices are less unjust. Murder is murder.
Murder is murder? Its universal? The punishment should be dealt fairly without exception?
Quote from: buckethead on April 25, 2010, 10:11:34 AM
Is race the only consideration for hate?
No, but in your original posting starting the thread you said "Let's say for the sake of discussion hate based upon recial (sic) prejudice and/or bigotry" so I thought that's what we were discussing.
(http://vinpon.files.wordpress.com/2007/04/windowslivewritersomeofthemostpowerfulimagesfromaroundthe-1266a000895-windowslivewritersomeofthemos2.jpg)
You know what? I am not going to wait for an answer!
The people who were not running down the street naked, bodies on fire, the dead ones, the children, were they murdered?
The dead here, after the fire bombing of Tokyo during WWII, murdered also? Watch Fog Of War with McNamara and he admits what was done was a war crime, did they do any jail time? You know the answer!
(http://www.dhm.de/lemo/objekte/pict/ph003741/index.jpg)
Every innocent Iraqi who dies, murdered as well? Same as killing someone for 50 dollars or cause you think they are a 'nigger' or a 'fag?'
Quote from: JC on April 25, 2010, 07:18:16 PM
(http://vinpon.files.wordpress.com/2007/04/windowslivewritersomeofthemostpowerfulimagesfromaroundthe-1266a000895-windowslivewritersomeofthemos2.jpg)
You know what? I am not going to wait for an answer!
The people who were not running down the street naked, bodies on fire, the dead ones, the children, were they murdered?
The girl in the photo wasn't even involved in military action...Quote
It is a heart-wrenching photo, told since 1996 with a heart-wrenching story, but if a picture speaks a thousand words, most of the words now associated with this photo are false or misleading. It is a counterfeit commercial parable to generate maximum donations, and relies not on what actually occurred in 1972, but on dramatic fabrications that appear to have been invented specifically to enhance the impact of the Canadian produced documentary, and increase revenues for certain foundations.
The photo is an accurate depiction of about 1/500th of a second of the immediate aftermath of an all-Vietnamese accident in an all-Vietnamese fight in June of 1972, and it was originally reported that way.
OCKLAWAHA
Quote from: Ocklawaha on April 25, 2010, 08:02:24 PM
The girl in the photo wasn't even involved in military action...
If you are correct, I question because you didnt provide a source, it doesn't ok, there are other countless examples of American Soldiers murdering civilians.
There is no difference, in the end we are talking about the death of innocence, the destruction of something that was acting completely contrary to the action taken against it!
Again, I ask, whats the difference between killing innocent civilians (collateral damage) shooting someone for $50 or lynching someone for the color of their skin?
You can be paid to kill and have no feelings one way or another for it or them, verse killing someone for a specific reason all of your own. (Skin color for your example)
One is hate
The other is not.
Both are bad regardless.
You have a right to dispute "The girl in the photo", as there are sources that tell three or more stories. Having re-reviewed my sources, I'd guess it WAS military action, just NOT ours.
1. She was hit with napalm or "nerve gas" in an American attack on her village... An American who surfaced and apologized to her in Washington DC. She now works for UNESCO as Vietnam's representative.
PROBLEM with the story, the American Pilot that apologized was a chaplin and we NEVER used nerve gas in the war.
2. She was hit with napalm or "nerve gas" in a South Vietnamese attack on an NVA strong point, the pilot tried to aboard the attack when he saw they were not NVA. Too late, damage done.
A pilot error is understandable but it brings to question how the little girl got out in front of the soldiers... Also, why dirt is still flying after she has cleared the area. It's obvious that something is crashing or exploding in the background and that whatever burned the girl happened before these shutter moment.
By the way I don't dispute the fact that that it is still violence and wrong. I don't agree that collateral damage is equal with murder for hire. INTENT plays a role in crime, under no case is collateral damage intentional. However, being DEAD from any of the above is unnatural and wrong.
OCKLAWAHA
Quote from: Ocklawaha on April 25, 2010, 10:53:02 PM
INTENT plays a role in crime, under no case is collateral damage intentional. However, being DEAD from any of the above is unnatural and wrong.
OCKLAWAHA
JC says "Again, I ask, whats the difference between killing innocent civilians (collateral damage) shooting someone for $50 or lynching someone for the color of their skin? "
JC, you obviously have no idea of what you are talking about. I am not making fun of your ignorance, I am simply pointing out a common problem on these forums. If your argument is that there should never be armed conflict among nations, or even in our communities, then you are just being naive. Those individuals that you would call "criminal" have protected this country from facing the horrors that Japan, Germany, Britain, France, and other countries have suffered. I'll say it once more, the use of force is never as exact as one would want. This is as true with a pistol as with a squadron of bombers. Although those that use force in our name are better trained than anyone else in the world, there will still be casualties due to the circumstances of combat. The need for the protection of our society must come first, even as we develop our technology and training to minimize those casualties. To not use force when required would be tantamount to suicide.
Does he refer to intent, or lack thereof?
I killed them accidentally, or I killed them because they had twinkies and I was hungry.
It is amusing though, watching you accuse your countrymen of every unimaginable crime commited. (You'd be surprised how many here are opposed to just about every war in recent memory, btw. I just don't agree with your views of the American soldier as a genecidal maniac)
You axed some questions (along with posting some graphic pictures). You waited for answers.
This, after questions were axed of you. I wait for answers as well.
Quote from: NotNow on April 25, 2010, 11:11:15 PM
JC says "Again, I ask, whats the difference between killing innocent civilians (collateral damage) shooting someone for $50 or lynching someone for the color of their skin? "
JC, you obviously have no idea of what you are talking about. I am not making fun of your ignorance, I am simply pointing out a common problem on these forums. If your argument is that there should never be armed conflict among nations, or even in our communities, then you are just being naive. Those individuals that you would call "criminal" have protected this country from facing the horrors that Japan, Germany, Britain, France, and other countries have suffered. I'll say it once more, the use of force is never as exact as one would want. This is as true with a pistol as with a squadron of bombers. Although those that use force in our name are better trained than anyone else in the world, there will still be casualties due to the circumstances of combat. The need for the protection of our society must come first, even as we develop our technology and training to minimize those casualties. To not use force when required would be tantamount to suicide.
So you have not watched Robert McNamara in the Fog Of War?
The US was not under threat from Vietnam, Iraq or Afghanistan or arguably even Korea. The thing is, you are playing the moral relativism game, choosing which types of death are appropriate because they best suit your needs. You can call me ignorant for simply not sharing your view but you are wrong, I am not ignorant I just see things differently than you do.
Quote from: buckethead on April 25, 2010, 10:39:50 AM
Is reverse racism where a person (of any particular race) considers him/herself to be genetically superior to members of his own race?
Is it when a person considers his/her own race genetically inferior?
Please clarify.
?
Quote from: buckethead on April 25, 2010, 11:15:14 PM
Does he refer to intent, or lack thereof?
I killed them accidentally, or I killed them because they had twinkies and I was hungry.
It is amusing though, watching you accuse your countrymen of every unimaginable crime commited. (You'd be surprised how many here are opposed to just about every war in recent memory, btw. I just don't agree with your views of the American soldier as a genecidal maniac)
You axed some questions (along with posting some graphic pictures). You waited for answers.
This, after questions were axed of you. I wait for answers as well.
My reason for even mentioning what US soldiers have done or war commanders have ordered is to simply put in your face that you are being as hypocritical as anyone else because you are making a moral judgment about who its ok to kill and why its ok to kill them. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians have been murdered in this conflict, some at the hands of other Iraqis, contractors and the US military. This not wanting to question the actions of individuals because they have been hoisted on a pedestal is crap and I think you know it. Besides, I didnt ask anyone to sign a contract and fly off to Iraq and I dont appreciate it because its dumb and I am certain that MANY of the young men and women who signed up did so for economic reasons and are being used like... well fill in the blank.
Quote from: buckethead on April 25, 2010, 11:22:27 PM
Quote from: buckethead on April 25, 2010, 10:39:50 AM
Is reverse racism where a person (of any particular race) considers him/herself to be genetically superior to members of his own race?
Is it when a person considers his/her own race genetically inferior?
Please clarify.
?
I did clarify, I said I should have said reverse discrimination. But I did not coin the term and am amused by its seeming irony and was using it in "" to be ironic because there is no such thing in my opinion.
I have watched "Fog of War".
I would recommend personal experience if you really want to know how civilian casualties occur, both innocent and not. Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Korea were military actions in support of allied governments, as was the declaration of war against Germany in 1941. Whether the "threat" to America is tomorrow or in years is subjective and should be discussed in another thread. I am not choosing which deaths are appropriate, my government is. When my government places fighting men in combat against another armed power, I recognize that the lives of those Americans are paramount, and that they will use the appropriate amount of force to complete their objective. Your ignorance is in understanding that the application of that force is never an exact science, and an infinite number of variables will always exist. I don't really care how you "see" things, this country and others will continue to use force when required or desired, and that force will continue to be inexact in its application. Those two facts are irrefutable.
Quote from: JC on April 25, 2010, 11:24:21 PM
Quote from: buckethead on April 25, 2010, 11:15:14 PM
Does he refer to intent, or lack thereof?
I killed them accidentally, or I killed them because they had twinkies and I was hungry.
It is amusing though, watching you accuse your countrymen of every unimaginable crime commited. (You'd be surprised how many here are opposed to just about every war in recent memory, btw. I just don't agree with your views of the American soldier as a genecidal maniac)
You axed some questions (along with posting some graphic pictures). You waited for answers.
This, after questions were axed of you. I wait for answers as well.
My reason for even mentioning what US soldiers have done or war commanders have ordered is to simply put in your face that you are being as hypocritical as anyone else because you are making a moral judgment about who its ok to kill and why its ok to kill them. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians have been murdered in this conflict, some at the hands of other Iraqis, contractors and the US military. This not wanting to question the actions of individuals because they have been hoisted on a pedestal is crap and I think you know it. Besides, I didnt ask anyone to sign a contract and fly off to Iraq and I dont appreciate it because its dumb and I am certain that MANY of the young men and women who signed up did so for economic reasons and are being used like... well fill in the blank.
I am not making any judgement about it being okay to kill anyone. You made the judgement that it is worse to murder a person out of hate (presumably racially based hate) than it is to murder based on a different motive.
You are the one willing to make the moral relativist call.
Quote from: NotNow on April 25, 2010, 11:27:54 PM
I have watched "Fog of War".
I would recommend personal experience if you really want to know how civilian casualties occur, both innocent and not. Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Korea were military actions in support of allied governments, as was the declaration of war against Germany in 1941. Whether the "threat" to America is tomorrow or in years is subjective and should be discussed in another thread. I am not choosing which deaths are appropriate, my government is. When my government places fighting men in combat against another armed power, I recognize that the lives of those Americans are paramount, and that they will use the appropriate amount of force to complete their objective. Your ignorance is in understanding that the application of that force is never an exact science, and an infinite number of variables will always exist. I don't really care how you "see" things, this country and others will continue to use force when required or desired, and that force will continue to be inexact in its application. Those two facts are irrefutable.
You keep saying that I am ignorant in understanding the application of force, well I have my own experience with this and understand it as much as any other 6531 in the USMC would understand it.
I agree, those two facts are irrefutable but it does not mean that I will sit idly and silently by as they happen.
Quote from: JC on April 25, 2010, 11:24:21 PM
Quote from: buckethead on April 25, 2010, 11:15:14 PM
Does he refer to intent, or lack thereof?
I killed them accidentally, or I killed them because they had twinkies and I was hungry.
It is amusing though, watching you accuse your countrymen of every unimaginable crime commited. (You'd be surprised how many here are opposed to just about every war in recent memory, btw. I just don't agree with your views of the American soldier as a genecidal maniac)
You axed some questions (along with posting some graphic pictures). You waited for answers.
This, after questions were axed of you. I wait for answers as well.
My reason for even mentioning what US soldiers have done or war commanders have ordered is to simply put in your face that you are being as hypocritical as anyone else because you are making a moral judgment about who its ok to kill and why its ok to kill them. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians have been murdered in this conflict, some at the hands of other Iraqis, contractors and the US military. This not wanting to question the actions of individuals because they have been hoisted on a pedestal is crap and I think you know it. Besides, I didnt ask anyone to sign a contract and fly off to Iraq and I dont appreciate it because its dumb and I am certain that MANY of the young men and women who signed up did so for economic reasons and are being used like... well fill in the blank.
Well, you are entitled to your OPINION. Crimes which have occurred in Iraq and AQ have been prosecuted by both American and AQ authorities. The deaths of any human beings is regrettable, but if a nation or organization commits itself to battle, then the results will always be destroyed property and death on one side or the other. I will always prefer that it be the other side myself.
Quote from: buckethead on April 25, 2010, 11:30:18 PM
Quote from: JC on April 25, 2010, 11:24:21 PM
Quote from: buckethead on April 25, 2010, 11:15:14 PM
Does he refer to intent, or lack thereof?
I killed them accidentally, or I killed them because they had twinkies and I was hungry.
It is amusing though, watching you accuse your countrymen of every unimaginable crime commited. (You'd be surprised how many here are opposed to just about every war in recent memory, btw. I just don't agree with your views of the American soldier as a genecidal maniac)
You axed some questions (along with posting some graphic pictures). You waited for answers.
This, after questions were axed of you. I wait for answers as well.
My reason for even mentioning what US soldiers have done or war commanders have ordered is to simply put in your face that you are being as hypocritical as anyone else because you are making a moral judgment about who its ok to kill and why its ok to kill them. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians have been murdered in this conflict, some at the hands of other Iraqis, contractors and the US military. This not wanting to question the actions of individuals because they have been hoisted on a pedestal is crap and I think you know it. Besides, I didnt ask anyone to sign a contract and fly off to Iraq and I dont appreciate it because its dumb and I am certain that MANY of the young men and women who signed up did so for economic reasons and are being used like... well fill in the blank.
I am not making any judgement about it being okay to kill anyone. You made the judgement that it is worse to murder a person out of hate (presumably racially based hate) than it is to murder based on a different motive.
You are the one willing to make the moral relativist call.
Very good point.
Quote from: JC on April 25, 2010, 11:32:47 PM
Quote from: NotNow on April 25, 2010, 11:27:54 PM
I have watched "Fog of War".
I would recommend personal experience if you really want to know how civilian casualties occur, both innocent and not. Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Korea were military actions in support of allied governments, as was the declaration of war against Germany in 1941. Whether the "threat" to America is tomorrow or in years is subjective and should be discussed in another thread. I am not choosing which deaths are appropriate, my government is. When my government places fighting men in combat against another armed power, I recognize that the lives of those Americans are paramount, and that they will use the appropriate amount of force to complete their objective. Your ignorance is in understanding that the application of that force is never an exact science, and an infinite number of variables will always exist. I don't really care how you "see" things, this country and others will continue to use force when required or desired, and that force will continue to be inexact in its application. Those two facts are irrefutable.
You keep saying that I am ignorant in understanding the application of force, well I have my own experience with this and understand it as much as any other 6531 in the USMC would understand it.
I agree, those two facts are irrefutable but it does not mean that I will sit idly and silently by as they happen.
Allright, if we agree that those two facts will stand, how do you propose to stop any deaths from occurring?
Quote from: buckethead on April 25, 2010, 11:30:18 PM
I am not making any judgement about it being okay to kill anyone. You made the judgement that it is worse to murder a person out of hate (presumably racially based hate) than it is to murder based on a different motive.
You are the one willing to make the moral relativist call.
I am going to quote my position on this because I never said it was worse to kill someone for one reason over the other.
Quote from: JC on April 21, 2010, 12:21:51 AM
You know what, I wasn't really going to get involved in this discussion but I just cant pass the bait up.
I can find many more sobering examples of Americas less than stellar record when it comes to the tyranny of the majority terrorizing a minority.
Of course it changes nothing for the victim to have their killer prosecuted for a hate crime, what it does do though, is make a statement that we as a society will not tolerate the dragging of an elderly black man behind a pickup truck for the crime of being black.
Now, where do I make the moral judgment about the different motives regarding murder?
Again, my reason for saying that so-called hate crimes should be held in a worse regard is because of the history of institutionalized legalized abuse and dominance one race exacted over the other. It is a statement that a group will NOT be terrorized (the same way it was only 40 years ago) for the color of their skin. Hate crimes laws take into account the historical context of racism and homophobia in the US.
Quote from: NotNow on April 25, 2010, 11:35:49 PM
Well, you are entitled to your OPINION. Crimes which have occurred in Iraq and AQ have been prosecuted by both American and AQ authorities. The deaths of any human beings is regrettable, but if a nation or organization commits itself to battle, then the results will always be destroyed property and death on one side or the other. I will always prefer that it be the other side myself.
LOL... Sorry, the "deaths of any human beings is regrettable" line is a little funny. Tell me, did you express that sentiment after 9/11?
Quote from: NotNow on April 25, 2010, 11:38:07 PM
Allright, if we agree that those two facts will stand, how do you propose to stop any deaths from occurring?
Well I am one person and I can only control my own actions. I can tell you that this individual will not be participating in any illegal wars of choice, I would go to jail before I went to Iraq. I cannot say that if my life or the lives of my family, or even a complete stranger were threatened I would not destroy the person doing the threatening, life is complex... But I dont see Americans as better or more valuable than anyone else. We are all here in this world together and we need to figure out how to get along.
Yes, I regret that that attack happened. Don't you? I'm not sure what your point is though, comparing the intentional hijacking of civilian aircraft and suicide bombing two buildings full of civilians to military warfare makes no sense to me. Perhaps you could explain that line of reasoning? Are you proposing that this was a "military" strike and that the persons killed were "civilian casualties"?
Quote from: stephendare on April 25, 2010, 11:57:02 PM
There isnt any point, JC. The poster literally does not have the ability to separate the propaganda from the truth.
You are right...
Quote from: JC on April 25, 2010, 11:51:41 PM
Quote from: NotNow on April 25, 2010, 11:38:07 PM
Allright, if we agree that those two facts will stand, how do you propose to stop any deaths from occurring?
Well I am one person and I can only control my own actions. I can tell you that this individual will not be participating in any illegal wars of choice, I would go to jail before I went to Iraq. I cannot say that if my life or the lives of my family, or even a complete stranger were threatened I would not destroy the person doing the threatening, life is complex... But I dont see Americans as better or more valuable than anyone else. We are all here in this world together and we need to figure out how to get along.
OK, if you have been discharged then you will never have to go anywhere. If you are still enlisted then you should carry out your oath.
You certainly have the right to protect yourself or others regardless of your opinions in this debate, and I hope that you never have to.
I also value all human life equally. But I recognize that war is (at least for now) a reality in our lives, and that those that choose to serve their country and fight in these conflicts must understand that the lives of their comrades are necessary to complete the job and are more important to them than anything else, at least while involved in armed conflict. In other words if we go in, we go in to win.
I would like to see world peace and sing Kum By Yah with everyone too. Let me know when you have that scheduled.
Well StephenDare!, suppose you enlighten me as to what is propaganda and what is truth?
Wing Marine, I hope you know who you are saddling up to.
Quote from: NotNow on April 26, 2010, 12:02:41 AM
Quote from: JC on April 25, 2010, 11:51:41 PM
Quote from: NotNow on April 25, 2010, 11:38:07 PM
Allright, if we agree that those two facts will stand, how do you propose to stop any deaths from occurring?
Well I am one person and I can only control my own actions. I can tell you that this individual will not be participating in any illegal wars of choice, I would go to jail before I went to Iraq. I cannot say that if my life or the lives of my family, or even a complete stranger were threatened I would not destroy the person doing the threatening, life is complex... But I dont see Americans as better or more valuable than anyone else. We are all here in this world together and we need to figure out how to get along.
OK, if you have been discharged then you will never have to go anywhere. If you are still enlisted then you should carry out your oath.
You certainly have the right to protect yourself or others regardless of your opinions in this debate, and I hope that you never have to.
I also value all human life equally. But I recognize that war is (at least for now) a reality in our lives, and that those that choose to serve their country and fight in these conflicts must understand that the lives of their comrades are necessary to complete the job and are more important to them than anything else, at least while involved in armed conflict. In other words if we go in, we go in to win.
I would like to see world peace and sing Kum By Yah with everyone too. Let me know when you have that scheduled.
You do understand how ambiguous this oath is right?
QuoteI, (name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.[1]
Quote from: NotNow on April 26, 2010, 12:06:44 AM
Well StephenDare!, suppose you enlighten me as to what is propaganda and what is truth?
Wing Marine, I hope you know who you are saddling up to.
LOL...
I am capable of forming my own opinions and standing by them or admitting when I am wrong. I dont need to saddle up to anyone, Stephen and I just happen to have some parallel arguments on this and some other topics.
Seems pretty staightforward to me. It means you do as you are ordered by the lawful COC. If you feel an order is unlawful, take your chances with the courts. It is the ARMED Services, which kind of infers fighting might come into play. If you think that fighting is wrong, you can go CO or to the aforementioned courts.
Quote from: NotNow on April 26, 2010, 12:15:32 AM
Seems pretty staightforward to me. It means you do as you are ordered by the lawful COC. If you feel an order is unlawful, take your chances with the courts. It is the ARMED Services, which kind of infers fighting might come into play. If you think that fighting is wrong, you can go CO or to the aforementioned courts.
Refer to article 92 of the UCMJ please. Then if you can also draw a line between conventions signed by the US and tell me how they play into this, that would be great.
892. ART. 92. FAILURE TO OBEY ORDER OR REGULATION
Any person subject to this chapter who--
(1) violates or fails to obey any lawful general order or regulation;
(2) having knowledge of any other lawful order issued by any member of the armed forces, which it is his duty to obey, fails to obey the order; or
(3) is derelict in the performance of his duties;
shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.
Again, if you feel that an order is "unlawful", then try the courts. What you are lamenting, I suppose, is that our obligations to treaties has been upheld by the courts, and that service in the current theaters of operations has been determined to be legal.
Quote from: NotNow on April 26, 2010, 12:26:09 AM
892. ART. 92. FAILURE TO OBEY ORDER OR REGULATION
Any person subject to this chapter who--
(1) violates or fails to obey any lawful general order or regulation;
(2) having knowledge of any other lawful order issued by any member of the armed forces, which it is his duty to obey, fails to obey the order; or
(3) is derelict in the performance of his duties;
shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.
Again, if you feel that an order is "unlawful", then try the courts. What you are lamenting, I suppose, is that our obligations to treaties has been upheld by the courts, and that service in the current theaters of operations has been determined to be legal.
QuoteWar of aggression
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
A war of aggression is a military conflict waged without the justification of self-defense. Waging such a war of aggression is a war crime under the customary international law. It is generally agreed by scholars in international law that the military actions of the Nazi regime in World War II in its search for so-called "Lebensraum" are characteristic of a war of aggression.
Wars without international legality (e.g. not out of self-defense nor sanctioned by the United Nations Security Council) can be considered wars of aggression; however, this alone usually does not constitute the definition of a war of aggression[citation needed]; certain wars may be unlawful but not aggressive (a war to settle a boundary dispute where the initiator has a reasonable claim, and limited aims, is one example).
The International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, which followed World War II, called the waging of aggressive war "essentially an evil thing...to initiate a war of aggression...is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."[1] Article 39 of the United Nations Charter provides that the UN Security Council shall determine the existence of any act of aggression and "shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security".
The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court refers to the crime of aggression as one of the “most serious crimes of concern to the international communityâ€, and provides that the crime falls within the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court (ICC). However, the Rome Statute stipulates that the ICC may not exercise its jurisdiction over the crime of aggression until such time as the states parties agree on a definition of the crime and set out the conditions under which it may be prosecuted.
And what authority has callled the Iraq or Afghanistan conflict "illegal"?
Have a good night JC, we both need some sleep.
What I need is to stop having needless arguments...
Hatred for something is generally fueled by a passion for something else.
Funny, isn't it?
Quote from: JC on April 26, 2010, 12:58:09 AM
What I need is to stop having needless arguments...
Just do what I do: ignore the post(s) entirely and write about something else relating to the subject. ;D
QuoteHatred for something is generally fueled by a passion for something else.
Hatred comes easy in Downtown Jacksonville.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bq093A22Z3I (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bq093A22Z3I)
Midget Hate?
This thread is taking a new direction... And I like it!
Quote from: stephendare on April 26, 2010, 09:50:04 AM
Quote from: JC on April 26, 2010, 12:58:09 AM
What I need is to stop having needless arguments...
Yeah, its pointless with the poster anyways. There is a real disingenuousness involved. First comes the circular logic, then, (if you are lucky) will come the personal insults, usually followed by a rebuke for anti patriotism or a reference to something similar, then the subject will mysteriously shift in order to avoid the locomotive engine coming straight at them, then the next day they will pretend that the conversation never happened and start over with the same Glen Beck nonsense.
Its really very Sisyphean.
If you want to listen to hilarity ensue, simply ask where the Weapons of Mass Destruction went in Iraq, and then ask if the poster still back Blackwater and Eric Prince (its founder) as the paragons of moral virtue that all the rest of us should hope to one day live up to.....if only we could understand the noble warrior code.
Thats always good for a few rides on the roller coaster.
The thread title, incidentally is silly.
We cannot, or rather it would be more correct to say, we should not be in the legal framework of limiting emotions. They are our nature and are there for a great reason generally. Even Hatred. For example it is in our best interest to hate invading soldiers who are raping and murdering our neighbors. We should hate evil.
What we punish is the decisions that we make, based on emotions plus reason. And that basic transaction in the relationship between the two ideals is what we call judgement
For example, when someone commits a crime of passion, like murdering their spouse for infidelity, we would punish them for Murder, not Passion.
Or more analogous to the idea of a hate crime: terrorism.
When some one murders a hostage because of the underlying desire to create fear based on politics or religion, we are not punishing them for either politics or religion.
We are punishing for the murders, true...but also because they are calculated to create something else, which is extortion based on the politics.
Or perhaps genocide: The attempt to murder all members of a race or culture. When the Germans attempted genocide on the Jews, it was based on their racial pride and their version of a scientific solution to their economic problems.
I suppose if one of the old guard hitlerian nazis were here, he would start a thread asking us, "Should we outlaw German Pride and Science?", and it would be just as disingenuous.
Hate Crime legislation is not an attempt to stop the unstoppable. It is a punishment for using it as a basis to commit crimes to satisfy hatred.
Best post on this topic. Stephen, I wished I had your gift of gab. Oh and I learned a new word "Sisyphean".
Agreed. That was the best composed arguement I for hate crime legislation I have read.
It does presume that a crime of hate is intended to "terrorize" or affect the behavior of others in the future.
The case Jags 07 pointed out would be a good example to use. Did the accused have terrorism in mind? Did he intend to send a message to white supremecists? DId intend to send a message to those who would treat labor unfairly? Can a member of a minority race (or sexual preference et al) be found guilty of a hate crime.
Some examples of convictions could lend some insight. I'll crack open a can of google when I get a minute.
Reading minds is not something easily done. I have doubts that we can perform that function adequately to write such legislation. I don't see any relevant distinction why a person would commit premeditated murder. (Not that the accused has been convicted)
Quote from: Jerry Moran on April 26, 2010, 05:22:57 AM
QuoteHatred for something is generally fueled by a passion for something else.
Hatred comes easy in Downtown Jacksonville.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bq093A22Z3I (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bq093A22Z3I)
You will take any opportunity, real or perceived wont you?
I knew this thread reminded of a movie.
http://www.youtube.com/watch/v/gn2sLUJ-eLk
Quote from: JagFan07 on April 26, 2010, 01:15:43 PM
I knew this thread reminded of a movie.
http://www.youtube.com/watch/v/gn2sLUJ-eLk
LOL... You really are confused!
Quote from: stephendare on April 26, 2010, 01:33:29 PM
I get it, though. Its like predicting that a person who tests positive for pot is going to be an unfit employee. You can tell the future!
Nice!
Oh wait, I am saddling up to (or on) someone I know nothing about, an evil _______.
Quote from: stephendare on April 26, 2010, 01:51:21 PM
I think the word that you are grasping for there is: evil sane person, although Im sure the one poster would prefer pinko socialist liberal. (and possibly traitor) My longtime membership in the Republican Party and affinity for Ayn Rand notwithstanding, somewhere in the dna, anyone who sound either polysyllabic or free thinking got metabolized into 'liberal'.
Its why there arent so many smart republicans left to talk to.
We are all 'independents', now.
Just using a word like "polysyllabic" makes you an elitist socialist!
Clever indeed. How do you guys manage it?
I must be too dense. Are you simply giving the children what they want?
BTW, I always suspected Wonka was a pedophile.
Many unsavory characters throughout fabled history. Perhaps some sort of legislation could help control these predators.
It should be against the law for a single woman to live with seven dwarfs?
Why is it ALWAYS about Springfield?? ROFLMAO!!
Quote from: buckethead on April 26, 2010, 02:51:38 PM
Clever indeed. How do you guys manage it?
I am not clever, I just saddle up on some clever people to make myself look that way!
See there! Birds of a feather stay near 'cause they're clever.
One can always tell when a thread is reaching closure by the onset of humor. This has been a fun thread. Thanks!
Quote from: buckethead on April 26, 2010, 04:27:30 PM
See there! Birds of a feather stay near 'cause they're clever.
One can always tell when a thread is reaching closure by the onset of humor. This has been a fun thread. Thanks!
whatever
QuoteMidget Hate?
It's not what Midget is. It's what Midget do. Applies to all the protected classes.
Quote
You will take any opportunity, real or perceived wont you?
It's called CAPITALISM, baby, and it's always worked for me!
By the way JC, are you a hetro or bi female and over 18? If so, I'd like to
date you.
Quote from: stephendare on April 26, 2010, 09:50:04 AM
Quote from: JC on April 26, 2010, 12:58:09 AM
What I need is to stop having needless arguments...
Yeah, its pointless with the poster anyways. There is a real disingenuousness involved. First comes the circular logic, then, (if you are lucky) will come the personal insults, usually followed by a rebuke for anti patriotism or a reference to something similar, then the subject will mysteriously shift in order to avoid the locomotive engine coming straight at them, then the next day they will pretend that the conversation never happened and start over with the same Glen Beck nonsense.
Its really very Sisyphean.
If you want to listen to hilarity ensue, simply ask where the Weapons of Mass Destruction went in Iraq, and then ask if the poster still back Blackwater and Eric Prince (its founder) as the paragons of moral virtue that all the rest of us should hope to one day live up to.....if only we could understand the noble warrior code.
Thats always good for a few rides on the roller coaster.
The thread title, incidentally is silly.
We cannot, or rather it would be more correct to say, we should not be in the legal framework of limiting emotions. They are our nature and are there for a great reason generally. Even Hatred. For example it is in our best interest to hate invading soldiers who are raping and murdering our neighbors. We should hate evil.
What we punish is the decisions that we make, based on emotions plus reason. And that basic transaction in the relationship between the two ideals is what we call judgement
For example, when someone commits a crime of passion, like murdering their spouse for infidelity, we would punish them for Murder, not Passion.
Or more analogous to the idea of a hate crime: terrorism.
When some one murders a hostage because of the underlying desire to create fear based on politics or religion, we are not punishing them for either politics or religion.
We are punishing for the murders, true...but also because they are calculated to create something else, which is extortion based on the politics.
Or perhaps genocide: The attempt to murder all members of a race or culture. When the Germans attempted genocide on the Jews, it was based on their racial pride and their version of a scientific solution to their economic problems.
I suppose if one of the old guard hitlerian nazis were here, he would start a thread asking us, "Should we outlaw German Pride and Science?", and it would be just as disingenuous.
Hate Crime legislation is not an attempt to stop the unstoppable. It is a punishment for using it as a basis to commit crimes to satisfy hatred.
Of course, if I could erase others arguments it would be a bit easier for me as well.
The simple answer is we can not read the minds of others.
Quotewhatever
I do draw the line at Cholas. Once had a bad experience with one and a razor blade. I withdraw my invitation.
Quoteunless we are shooting at them for not using the sidewalk, right?
It depends entirely on the circumstances:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ZXHp6bsCow
http://dc.state.fl.us/ActiveInmates/detail.asp?Bookmark=1&From=list&SessionID=671968866 (http://dc.state.fl.us/ActiveInmates/detail.asp?Bookmark=1&From=list&SessionID=671968866)