[Jenn]

In article
,
Clyde Slick wrote:

On 28 Ian, 18:53, Jenn wrote:
In article


We have a hate crimes case in our sleep little community right now. Or
to be more precise, it MAY be a hate crime. Some churches have been
vandalized, and the DA is saying that when they catch the perp, hate
crime laws MAY apply.

sure, because of what he ThouGHT

If it's PROVED to be motivated by hate, yes, I suppose so. But he could
have the thoughts with no penalty. But he (or she, or they) did the
crime. If they did it to intimidate a group, those who believe in hate
crimes laws would say that the enhanced penalty is worth it because they
are acting to suppress the rights of more than one person.

[Jenn]

In article
,
Clyde Slick wrote:

On 28 Ian, 18:44, Jenn wrote:
In article
,
Clyde Slick wrote:



On 28 Ian, 00:35, Jenn wrote:
In article
,

RapidRonnie wrote:
On Jan 27, 7:46 pm, Clyde Slick wrote:
On 27 Ian, 20:30, Bret Ludwig wrote:

Since I have never advocated "white supremacy"

HUH!!!???!!!

I don't think Bret is a white supremacist. I think he IS a white
separatist, or at least a white nationalist. He certainly is a racist
by the standards commonly promoted today.

That said, I think a person has a right to be a racist, provided he
does not infringe on the rights of members of groups he personally
does not like.

I agree.

The same is true of people who disapprove of Catholics,
Jews, Muslims, or homosexuals. Their prejudices won't be corrected by
laws: what will happen is they will be made covert.

"Hate crime" laws are dangerous because they criminalize a belief,
not an action,

We do that all the time, of course. Was a murder a "crime of passion"
or was it premeditated? Makes a difference in the charge and the
penalty.

and once one belief is a crime, any belief-or lack
thereof- can be made a crime. Don't believe in transubstantiation, the
virgin birth, or the necessity of burning witches before they can
deprive the community's men of their privy members? Die for heresy!
That was exactly what happened 300+ years ago.

But a hate crime has a crime. You aren't charged with the hate. You're
charged with the underlying crime, but with enhanced penalty. We can
debate the philosophy behind this if you would like to do so.

I just ran into this:
it is partly about hate crimes and thought crimes.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/artic...AL07/459776273...

BTW, Hentoff is a devout civil liberterian, so try to
get past any prejudice against the the Times
years ago, he appeared in the Washington Post
He is syndicated, and appears in many liberal newspapers.
You may also know him as a noted jazz critic.

I don't have time to read every word at this moment, but what I read can
be answered again by what I wrote above. It's not thought crime,
because having the thought is not criminal. Nor do I believe that
speech should be restricted. The point is that when a perp commits a
crime due to harm or intimidate a GROUP, the perp is a danger to a
GROUP, i.e. more than one individual, hence the enhanced penalties.


Wrong.
when a dealer offs a snitch, he is also intimidating
a group, there is no large penalty for that, and no designation
as a hate crime. No, hate crimes target motivation, i.e., thought.

Conversely, if a gay basher offs a guy for being gay, he may very
well be targeting just that person, depending on circumstances, and
is not threatening or a threat to anyone else. Maybe he didn't like
the
way the victim looked at him.

And if it's not shown that the perp was acting against gay people in
general, he/she won't receive the enhanced penalty.

[Clyde Slick]

On 29 Ian, 11:39, Jenn wrote:
In article
,
*Clyde Slick wrote:





On 28 Ian, 18:44, Jenn wrote:
In article
,
*Clyde Slick wrote:

On 28 Ian, 00:35, Jenn wrote:
In article
,

*RapidRonnie wrote:
On Jan 27, 7:46 pm, Clyde Slick wrote:
On 27 Ian, 20:30, Bret Ludwig wrote:

*Since I have never advocated "white supremacy"

HUH!!!???!!!

*I don't think Bret is a white supremacist. I think he IS a white
separatist, or at least a white nationalist. *He certainly is a racist
by the standards commonly promoted today.

*That said, I think a person has a right to be a racist, provided he
does not infringe on the rights of members of groups he personally
does not like.

I agree.

The same is true of people who disapprove of Catholics,
Jews, Muslims, or homosexuals. Their prejudices won't be corrected by
laws: what will happen is they will be made covert.

*"Hate crime" laws are dangerous because they criminalize a belief,
not an action,

We do that all the time, of course. *Was a murder a "crime of passion"
or was it premeditated? *Makes a difference in the charge and the
penalty.

and once one belief is a crime, any belief-or lack
thereof- can be made a crime. Don't believe in transubstantiation, the
virgin birth, or the necessity of burning witches before they can
deprive the community's men of their privy members? Die for heresy!
That was exactly what happened 300+ years ago.

But a hate crime has a crime. *You aren't charged with the hate. *You're
charged with the underlying crime, but with enhanced penalty. *We can
debate the philosophy behind this if you would like to do so.

I just ran into this:
it is partly about hate crimes and thought crimes.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/artic...AL07/459776273....

BTW, Hentoff is a devout civil liberterian, so try to
get past any prejudice against the the Times
years ago, he appeared in the Washington Post
He is syndicated, and appears in many liberal newspapers.
You may also know him as a noted jazz critic.

I don't have time to read every word at this moment, but what I read can
be answered again by what I wrote above. *It's not thought crime,
because having the thought is not criminal. *Nor do I believe that
speech should be restricted. *The point is that when a perp commits a
crime due to harm or intimidate a GROUP, the perp is a danger to a
GROUP, i.e. more than one individual, hence the enhanced penalties.

Wrong.
when a dealer offs a snitch, he is also intimidating
a group, there is no large penalty for that, and no designation
as a hate crime. No, hate crimes target motivation, i.e., thought.

Conversely, if a gay basher offs a guy for being gay, he may very
well be targeting just that person, depending on circumstances, and
is not threatening or a threat to anyone else. Maybe he didn't like
the
way the victim looked at him.

And if it's not shown that the perp was acting against gay people in
general, he/she won't receive the enhanced penalty.- Ascunde citatul -

- Afiºare text în citat -

they don't deserve any more rights than any other people, nor do
they deserve any less.
(AFA marriage, they already have the same rights as everyone else, but
as
far as same sex unions, they should be legitimized)

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jan 29, 6:41*pm, ScottW wrote:
On Jan 28, 11:22*pm, wrote:

It should be, as all Muslims simply do what their bible tells them to
do. That was the whole reason to fear this passage, right?

*Not all, just way too many.

Yet down below you say it is men telling people that is what the
Qu'ran says. I am more inclined to go along with that.

They must do so, as it says so in the Qu'ran.

*They do have the option to say....this Islam ****
is BS....I'm not doing that.

Neither do christians, if they're really christians.

This was your whole
point.

Yet all these "true" Muslims can't be bothered to blow people up when
"god directed" them to. So are they doing it because god told them to
or not?

*They're doing it because some man told them god said
to do it. *As an atheist you must believe he is lying.
So we have that in common.

Do you also believe the pope or any other religious leader is equally
full of ****?

I do.

Why would you assume that "****es me off"?

*Everything else does. Is this an exception?

Not everything elae ****es me off, so your question is invalid.

And what has this to do
with anything?

*****ed off people are more prone to blow **** up as
they think god has told them to do.
Good thing you're an atheist or you would have
exploded a long time ago.

This from the King of Anger Management Skills. LOL!

2pid, no offense, but your one-liners are weak and boring. Was the
kennel closed today or something? ;-)

*Should I do the multi-paragraph rambling nonsense thing
as you so dearly love?

I know words confuse you. That was more about stupid and lame one-
liners like:

"Good thing you're an atheist or you would have exploded a long time
ago."

Did you read Joshua 23?

*Yup. It's not the same as 9:5 IMO.

Actually, the point was that god is telling them to expect exactly
what is happening. I thought that would make you happy.

*These Muslims are simply fulfilling biblical
prophesy. You should be happy. Rapture is near!

See?

*Why do you assume that quoting one thing from
a blog implies one agrees with everything on the blog?

Um, why not? What did you disagree with?

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jan 29, 9:40*pm, "ScottW" wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote
On Jan 29, 6:41 pm, ScottW wrote:
On Jan 28, 11:22 pm, wrote:

:Neither do christians, if they're really christians.

If Christians in significant convinced me that the bible
ordered them to kill or convert non-christians or
subjugate women....I'd suggest being a christian was
dumb too.

Does the bible specifically relegate women to a lower tier? Yes.

o you also believe the pope or any other religious leader is equally
:full of ****?

Only when the pope said pedophilia in the Catholic church
was a media conspiracy. *That's about the closest in
recent times. *History before our times is not relevant
AFIAC....you, however, seem inclined to bear guilt.

Oh, 2pid, believe me, I *know* that "history before our times is not
relevant" to you. That's the sign of a true bonehead.

There's also a distinction between understanding history and "bearing
guilt".

Understanding, for example, that we in the US used to enslave people,
understanding the causes and the effects of that enslavement, and
understanding the long-term results is not "guilt".

I am not directly responsible for slavery. Neither are you. But one of
the results of it was legal, institutionalized discrimination. One of
the results of that was "white privelege". There are many other
results of that as well. They exist today, as do the attitudes that
provided the foundation for that "peculiar institution" (see any post
by Bratzi as an example). You are responsible for understanding that
if for no other reason than to be a decent human being. You (in
particular because you are a white male) are responsible for fighting
it for the same reason. You have failed in your responsibility. "It's
just not your problem."

BTW, the bible DOES allow slavery. There are even rules about how it
should be conducted. You are no doubt dismayed at the passing of that
institution here, you being a good christian and all.

Why would you assume that "****es me off"?

Everything else does. Is this an exception?

:Not everything elae ****es me off, so your question is invalid.

Actions speak louder than words.

Puhleeze don't preach to me 2pid. You have "actions" that you
recommend for everybody but yourself. This is no different.

It's also "trite". LOL!

****ed off people are more prone to blow **** up as
they think god has told them to do.
Good thing you're an atheist or you would have
exploded a long time ago.

:This from the King of Anger Management Skills. LOL!

I am blessed.

With a noticeable lack of grey matter.

But plenty of hypocrisy.

2pid, no offense, but your one-liners are weak and boring. Was the
kennel closed today or something? ;-)

Should I do the multi-paragraph rambling nonsense thing
as you so dearly love?

:I know words confuse you.

*I just can't read your bull beyond a paragraph or two.
The eyes close and the music fills the air....

Is that your excuse for not understanding anything that's said to you?
Apparently anybody you disagree with has the same affect on you.

*That was more about stupid and lame one-
liners like:

"Good thing you're an atheist or you would have exploded a long time
ago."

You think? * I think your persona with a religious conversion
is a crusade waiting to happen.

There you go, 'thinking' again. You've never been successful at it.
Nobody, however, has been successful at making you aware of how you
appear to others, so have at it.

Are you even dimly aware of how angry you come off? (A preemptive
strike at the invariable "IKYABWAI" that will follow. Most people
understand that sarcasm, etc. is not "anger" but it's probably "trite"
of me to say so. LOL!

Did you read Joshua 23?

Yup. It's not the same as 9:5 IMO.

:Actually, the point was that god is telling them to expect exactly
:what is happening. I thought that would make you happy.

I would be happy if one of them did not explicitly order
killing.

Well, that doesn't appear to be the case. Now what? Should we do some
killin' of our own? Oh, wait: we already are. I suppose we are morally
superior, as the killing we do isn't ordered by the bible. Our killing
is justified.

And we should reinstitute slavery.

As I said many times before (MANY times before), it may indeed at some
point come to a 10th or 12th or 15th (or whatever number we're on now)
Crusade. Why are you in such a hurry? This stuff has been happening
for centuries. Suddenly to those "less-endowed" in the brains
department Islam is THE BIGGEST DEAL EVER TO HAPPEN EVER! WE WILL ALL
LIVE UNDER SHARIA! FOREVER! LIFE WILL BE OVER!

Those guys you posted a photo of recently may be building rowboats (no
doubt paid for by robbing banks) as we speak. Meanwhile we arm the
House of Saud (perhaps the "worst of the worst" as the seat of the
most fundamental Islamic Extremism) with F-16s and other military
hardware. Ditto Pakistan. Ditto Afghanistan (in the 1980s and again
now). Ditto Iraq (in the 1980s and again now). Ditto Iran. History
does indeed repeat itself, even if we don't want it to, 2pid.
According to you, we are arming the Devil Himself. And I'll bet you do
not even have the faintest glimmer as to why that is, and has been, an
amazingly bad thing for us in the long haul.

That's why my advice would be to take a longer view and not get swept
up in the emotions of the moment. But because you cannot, or will not,
do that, that's also why I've said (MANY times) that you'd be an
absolute disaster as a military leader. And you would be.

Duh.

Anyway, no doubt when "Rapture" comes you'll be snapped up like a sale-
priced bra at the annual Filene's Basement sale. And I agree with you:
that's an entirely 'rational' belief. LOL!

And 2pid, please send down a glass of cold water occasionally, as you
look down upon me burning in the eternal fires of hell and damnation
with a self-satisfied smirk. OK? LOL!

These Muslims are simply fulfilling biblical
prophesy. You should be happy. Rapture is near!

:See?

*Nope. *You're not being rational or accurate, but I'm not
really inclined to debate religion with an atheist.

Thank god. (LOL!) There's nothing less interesting to me than
'discussing' religion with somebody who 'thinks' they're 'rational'
and needs "proof" of other claims. They always end up making circular
arguments, but I suppose someone as 'rational' as you are would see
that.

Cables make all the difference in the world, 2pid: you just have to
have faith.

LOL!

Why do you assume that quoting one thing from
a blog implies one agrees with everything on the blog?

:Um, why not? What did you disagree with?

The relevance of ancient history to today's problems.
Human history only repeats itself if we let it.

Um, the Muslims were beaten back, 2pid. The Islamic empire described
in that historical excerpt is no more. I'd suggest that you reread
that history. I think that you've been trying to argue the reverse of
that.

Here's some more Islamic history for you to misunderstand:

http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/OTTOMAN/OTTOMAN1.HTM

Does *everything* confuse you?

lol Lol LoL lOl LOL!

[Clyde Slick]

On 30 Ian, 04:52, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:


BTW, the bible DOES allow slavery. There are even rules about how it
should be conducted. You are no doubt dismayed at the passing of that
institution here, you being a good christian and all.



"At least" we have given up trying to implement it.

[Jenn]

On Jan 29, 2:34*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:
On 29 Ian, 11:39, Jenn wrote:



In article
,
*Clyde Slick wrote:

On 28 Ian, 18:44, Jenn wrote:
In article
,
*Clyde Slick wrote:

On 28 Ian, 00:35, Jenn wrote:
In article
,

*RapidRonnie wrote:
On Jan 27, 7:46 pm, Clyde Slick wrote:
On 27 Ian, 20:30, Bret Ludwig wrote:

*Since I have never advocated "white supremacy"

HUH!!!???!!!

*I don't think Bret is a white supremacist. I think he IS a white
separatist, or at least a white nationalist. *He certainly is a racist
by the standards commonly promoted today.

*That said, I think a person has a right to be a racist, provided he
does not infringe on the rights of members of groups he personally
does not like.

I agree.

The same is true of people who disapprove of Catholics,
Jews, Muslims, or homosexuals. Their prejudices won't be corrected by
laws: what will happen is they will be made covert.

*"Hate crime" laws are dangerous because they criminalize a belief,
not an action,

We do that all the time, of course. *Was a murder a "crime of passion"
or was it premeditated? *Makes a difference in the charge and the
penalty.

and once one belief is a crime, any belief-or lack
thereof- can be made a crime. Don't believe in transubstantiation, the
virgin birth, or the necessity of burning witches before they can
deprive the community's men of their privy members? Die for heresy!
That was exactly what happened 300+ years ago.

But a hate crime has a crime. *You aren't charged with the hate. *You're
charged with the underlying crime, but with enhanced penalty. *We can
debate the philosophy behind this if you would like to do so.

I just ran into this:
it is partly about hate crimes and thought crimes.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/artic...AL07/459776273...

BTW, Hentoff is a devout civil liberterian, so try to
get past any prejudice against the the Times
years ago, he appeared in the Washington Post
He is syndicated, and appears in many liberal newspapers.
You may also know him as a noted jazz critic.

I don't have time to read every word at this moment, but what I read can
be answered again by what I wrote above. *It's not thought crime,
because having the thought is not criminal. *Nor do I believe that
speech should be restricted. *The point is that when a perp commits a
crime due to harm or intimidate a GROUP, the perp is a danger to a
GROUP, i.e. more than one individual, hence the enhanced penalties.

Wrong.
when a dealer offs a snitch, he is also intimidating
a group, there is no large penalty for that, and no designation
as a hate crime. No, hate crimes target motivation, i.e., thought.

Conversely, if a gay basher offs a guy for being gay, he may very
well be targeting just that person, depending on circumstances, and
is not threatening or a threat to anyone else. Maybe he didn't like
the
way the victim looked at him.

And if it's not shown that the perp was acting against gay people in
general, he/she won't receive the enhanced penalty.- Ascunde citatul -

- Afiºare text în citat -

they don't deserve any more rights than any other people, nor do
they deserve any less.

I agree.

(AFA marriage, they already have the same rights as everyone else,

And if the laws change, we still will. So will you.

but
as
far as same sex unions, they should be legitimized)

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jan 30, 2:53*pm, ScottW wrote:

*Pretty typical...I say I think this...you say, No you don't.
*and so it goes.....

You've made it very clear, 2pid, several times: the world was a tabula
rasa before you were born. Nothing of import happened. Everything is
all brand new.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jan 30, 4:10*pm, ScottW wrote:
On Jan 30, 2:00*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
On Jan 30, 2:53*pm, ScottW wrote:

*Pretty typical...I say I think this...you say, No you don't.
*and so it goes.....

You've made it very clear, 2pid, several times: the world was a tabula
rasa before you were born. Nothing of import happened. Everything is
all brand new.

*Same o, same o. *Gross misrepresentation after gross
misrepresentation.

:Um, why not? What did you disagree with?

"The relevance of ancient history to today's problems."
Human history only repeats itself if we let it.

-and-

"I am not responsible for anything before my birth."

To what end?

Never mind, 2pid. It's pretty clear you never know what you are saying.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jan 30, 6:06*pm, ScottW wrote:
On Jan 30, 3:34*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"





wrote:
On Jan 30, 4:10*pm, ScottW wrote:

On Jan 30, 2:00*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
On Jan 30, 2:53*pm, ScottW wrote:

*Pretty typical...I say I think this...you say, No you don't.
*and so it goes.....

You've made it very clear, 2pid, several times: the world was a tabula
rasa before you were born. Nothing of import happened. Everything is
all brand new.

*Same o, same o. *Gross misrepresentation after gross
misrepresentation.

:Um, why not? What did you disagree with?

"The relevance of ancient history to today's problems."
Human history only repeats itself if we let it.

-and-

"I am not responsible for anything before my birth."

*To what end?

Never mind, 2pid. It's pretty clear you never know what you are saying.

It's completely clear that you haven't a clue what I say...nor really
care.

Not true, 2pid. I just find what you say naive and unintelligent (and
usually unintelligible, but that's a different topic).

It just makes your sad life complete claiming I said or meant
something completely different.

That's not true, 2pid. Several others here see the same thing. In
fact, you might be the only one who doesn't see it.

That's really weird.

I know, but there it is.

Tell me again how history has no bearing on today's problems. I like
that story. And tell me how you would have fought against slavery, for
example, during the 1850s, as that "peculiar institution" was around
before you would have been born and would therefore "not have been
your responsibility". I like that one too.

For further credit, explain how the Ottoman Empire's liberal
interpretation of Sharia differed from the interpretation you so fear
today. It's in that Ottoman history I provided that you misunderstood
(if you bothered to read it). Then compare and contrast the rise of
conservatism in the US with conservatism in the Islamic world.

Oh, never mind. Many of the foundations of those shifts were laid
before your time.

lol Lol LoL lOl LOL!

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jan 30, 6:23*pm, ScottW wrote:
On Jan 30, 4:17*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

Not true, 2pid. I just find what you say naive and unintelligent (and
usually unintelligible, but that's a different topic).

*What you don't understand must be naive and unintelligent.
*That says a lot about you.

Do you really 'think' what you say is over the head of *anybody* here?

LOL!

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jan 31, 12:48*pm, ScottW wrote:
On Jan 31, 10:07*am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
On Jan 30, 6:23*pm, ScottW wrote:

On Jan 30, 4:17*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
Not true, 2pid. I just find what you say naive and unintelligent (and
usually unintelligible, but that's a different topic).

*What you don't understand must be naive and unintelligent.
*That says a lot about you.

Do you really 'think' what you say is over the head of *anybody* here?

*Should it be? *No. *But apparently you have some serious challenges..

I am honored: apparently my posts are so important that you just can't
help yourself. You *have* to read them, in spite of your claims to the
contrary. LOL!

2pid, I've 'discussed' things with many of your peers: three-and-four-
year-olds, people suffering from retardation, dementia, or other
psychological or mental issues, and so on. They may agree with your
'logic'. Most others would not.

Then again....you could be the typical Lettermans man on the street.

Ah, so *that* is your ultimate 'test' of IQ. No wonder you're so
confused by everything.

Your odds of being selected by Letterman are very small, 2pid. You can
stop 'studying' for the 'test' now.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jan 31, 1:37*pm, ScottW wrote:
On Jan 31, 11:32*am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

I am honored: apparently my posts are so important that you just can't
help yourself. You *have* to read them, in spite of your claims to the
contrary. LOL!

* I can manage...if you keep them under 3 paragraphs....
*sometimes. *Not always. *Like now.

So you just responded to a post that you didn't read.

Brilliant! LOL!

[George M. Middius]

Shhhh! said:

Your odds of being selected by Letterman are very small, 2pid. You can
stop 'studying' for the 'test' now.

He'd fit right in on "Jaywalking" though. Half those people just answer
"duh" when Leno asks how many states in the union.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jan 31, 4:08*pm, ScottW wrote:
On Jan 31, 11:57*am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

So you just responded to a post that you didn't read.

*Not all of it.

This can be filed under the "Why we should take 2pid seriously" file.
It would be horrible to put all of your proclamations, dull thoughts,
examples of poor reasoning skills and misuses of common words in the
wrong file.

If I mistakenly put this in the "Why we should consider 2pid
intelligent" file, it really wouldn't matter though: that one is empty.

[George M. Middius]

The Idiot idiocizes at the top of his craft.

This can be filed under the "Why we should take 2pid seriously" file.

You keep files on people from usenet? Very strange indeed.

Your cleverness knows no bounds, Scooter. I hope you didn't get all hopped
up on flea powder.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jan 31, 5:11*pm, George M. Middius cmndr _ george @ comcast .
net wrote:
The Idiot idiocizes at the top of his craft.

This can be filed under the "Why we should take 2pid seriously" file.
You keep files on people from usenet? * Very strange indeed.

Your cleverness knows no bounds, Scooter. I hope you didn't get all hopped
up on flea powder.

You "nailed" 2pid on something else, George. 2pid's soporific affect
knows no bounds.