[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

Poor Arny! His love of all things digital will leave us with only the
MP3!

Here's a technical claim for you, GOIA: MP3s sound like ****, even if
*you* can't tell the difference.

http://www.startribune.com/entertain.../14294271.html

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jan 27, 6:00*pm, Bret Ludwig wrote:
On Jan 27, 3:14 pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
Poor Arny! His love of all things digital will leave us with only the
MP3!

Here's a technical claim for you, GOIA: MP3s sound like ****, even if
*you* can't tell the difference.

http://www.startribune.com/entertain.../14294271.html

****ter is even less helpful than Arny, a considerable achievement of
sorts.

I'm sorry, Bratzi, but I did not once mention white supremacy, so you
were specifically excluded from this thread.

[Clyde Slick]

On 27 Ian, 20:30, Bret Ludwig wrote:


Since I have never advocated "white supremacy"

HUH!!!???!!!

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

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!!!???!!!

He probably meant "in this thread".

[RapidRonnie]

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. 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, 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.

[Jenn]

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.

[RapidRonnie]

"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.

It's very dangerous because it makes some motives in effect illegal.
It essentially means thoughtcrime.

If a bad guy drags a human being to his or her death behind a truck,
is it a worse act because he disliked that person's race or sexuality
than, say, because the draggee was a Mets fan or because he owed the
assailant five hundred bucks for dope?

The Jasper, Texas case occurred when a white convict who had been
raped by blacks in prison dragged a black convict behind his truck.
Now the white convict committed a horrible crime, and was punished, in
my opinion, properly. But it would have been just as proper if the
draggee had been white, or if the perpetrator had no discernible
history of White racial activity.

What's going to happen is that certain groups are going to become
especially protected, for one thing, and that means nonmembers will be
less protected by the same laws. Additionally, people with "wrong
attitudes" and "incorrect beliefs" will be marked for special
harassment.

Sooner or later a different group will get hold of power and these
laws will be used in ways you don't expect-and, I can safely predict,
will not like. It wouldn't surprise me at all to find blasphemy a de
facto crime in certain states, as well as other Biblical offenses.
There are preachers running around right now advocating the death
penalty for blasphemy, heresy, cursing one's parents, sorcery and
necromancy. To say nothing, of course, of good old "crimes against
nature"...which have nothing to do with pollution or ecology, but any
deviance from the standard , one male one female you-know-what. Is
that the sort of America you would find desireable or even tolerable?

I sure wouldn't.

[Jenn]

In article
,
RapidRonnie wrote:

"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.

It's very dangerous because it makes some motives in effect illegal.
It essentially means thoughtcrime.

If a bad guy drags a human being to his or her death behind a truck,
is it a worse act because he disliked that person's race or sexuality
than, say, because the draggee was a Mets fan or because he owed the
assailant five hundred bucks for dope?

The Jasper, Texas case occurred when a white convict who had been
raped by blacks in prison dragged a black convict behind his truck.
Now the white convict committed a horrible crime, and was punished, in
my opinion, properly. But it would have been just as proper if the
draggee had been white, or if the perpetrator had no discernible
history of White racial activity.

What's going to happen is that certain groups are going to become
especially protected, for one thing, and that means nonmembers will be
less protected by the same laws. Additionally, people with "wrong
attitudes" and "incorrect beliefs" will be marked for special
harassment.

Sooner or later a different group will get hold of power and these
laws will be used in ways you don't expect-and, I can safely predict,
will not like. It wouldn't surprise me at all to find blasphemy a de
facto crime in certain states, as well as other Biblical offenses.
There are preachers running around right now advocating the death
penalty for blasphemy, heresy, cursing one's parents, sorcery and
necromancy. To say nothing, of course, of good old "crimes against
nature"...which have nothing to do with pollution or ecology, but any
deviance from the standard , one male one female you-know-what. Is
that the sort of America you would find desireable or even tolerable?

I sure wouldn't.

Every hate crime statute that I'm aware of contains language stating
that in order to qualify for the enhanced penalty, a crime must be
committed with the intent to terrify or intimidate a group or class of
people. I don't know of any successful hate crime prosecutions where
such motivation wasn't proved. The philosophy behind the laws is that a
hate crime targets more than just the actual victim; indeed, by the
nature of the crime, there IS more than one victim. I can certainly
understand your POV; I've thought about this issue a great deal.

[Arny Krueger]

"RapidRonnie" wrote in message

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.

I think that we have yet another example of what's wrong with RAO - people
who would rather waste their time whining about the world's non-audio
problems, and bickering childishly, rather than sticking to the topic of
audio.

[Clyde Slick]

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


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.

But hate crimes are not really based on hate, they are based on
only on attitudes towards race, gender preference and religion.
I may hate my neighbor for various other reasons, and it would
not be classified as a hate crime. The better way is to charge two
separate crimes, the crime itself, and an additional charge for civil
rights
violations. I am in favor of criminalizing civil rights violations.
Bit call things want they are, and prove the civil
rights violation in court. See, I am also in
favor of protecting the civil liberties
of those accused .

[Clyde Slick]

On 28 Ian, 07:35, "Arny Krueger" wrote:



I think that we have yet another example of what's wrong with RAO - people
who would rather waste their time whining about the world's non-audio
problems, and bickering childishly, rather than sticking to the topic of
audio.

So, you are going to give your posse paranoia a rest for the day.
Good.

[Clyde Slick]

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...459776273/1013

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.

[George M. Middius]

RapidRonnie said:

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.

When hateful views are spewed in public, others have a right to disagree.
As long as we don't inflict anything worse on the racist than he inflicts
on us, it's all part of the right to free speech.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jan 28, 6:35*am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

I think that we have yet another example of what's wrong with RAO - people
who would rather waste their time whining about the world's non-audio
problems, and bickering childishly, rather than sticking to the topic of
audio.

...said GOIA judgmentally, ignoring the audio content in the original
post in order to whine about what is wrong with RAO without sticking
to the topic of audio.

I think that we have yet another example of why we need universal
health care. Perhaps then GOIA could afford the treatments he so
obviously needs.

LOL!

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jan 28, 3:56*pm, Bret Ludwig wrote:

*I have no desire to deport blacks or other nonwhites who are here
legally and have been, but I certainly would restrict immigration very
severely. And I would give some preference to Europeans because they
are more likely to be in harmony with our sense of values, our society.

Bratzi, if a large majority of legal residents of the US who are of
white European descent said that you and your views are not in harmony
with the values or culture of this country and this society, would you
leave?

Just say the word "yes" and the petition drive is on. I'll even buy
you a one-way ticket to Iran.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jan 28, 3:59*pm, Bret Ludwig wrote:

*What is hate? Who defines it? Why are certain preferences hate and
others, such as found in Mein Tampf or the Talmud or other explicitly
racist works, not hate? When is this decision made? Where are your
criteria derived from?

You're the only person I've ever heard who has said "Mein Kampf" is
not full of hate.

Perhaps that's because I only have been around normal people. Whether
you know it or not, you're a very sick little guy.

I want answers.

I hope that you found this helpful.

[George M. Middius]

Bratzi shakes his rattle and gropes for his pacifier.

When hateful views are spewed in public, others have a right to disagree.
As long as we don't inflict anything worse on the racist than he inflicts
on us, it's all part of the right to free speech.

What is hate? Who defines it?

As far as RAO, you are the personification of race hatred. (Technically,
hate is a primary emotion, and hatred is the actualization thereof.)

To learn about definitions, you could start with dictionaries. Then, after
learning what the lexicographers say, you could see about ransoming your
humanity from the SS.

Why are certain preferences hate and
others, such as found in Mein Tampf or the Talmud or other explicitly
racist works, not hate?

Good! Keep asking those "tough" questions.

I want answers.

We all want something, Bratzi.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jan 28, 4:40*pm, ScottW wrote:
On Jan 28, 2:10*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
On Jan 28, 3:59*pm, Bret Ludwig wrote:

*What is hate? Who defines it? Why are certain preferences hate and
others, such as found in Mein Tampf or the Talmud or other explicitly
racist works, not hate? When is this decision made? Where are your
criteria derived from?

You're the only person I've ever heard who has said "Mein Kampf" is
not full of hate.

*A book no one reads.

Tacit admission that the Talmud (a book that many apparently read) and
Mein Kampf are both equally full of hatred.

*How about the Quran? * How much hate is in that book?

I bought one with the intent of reading it to find out. The
translation I got read from right to left. When I bought it I didn't
think that would bother me but it did. I gave up.

From what I did read it seemed to me exactly like any other religious
book, including the christian bible, reads: lots of "we're the only
true religion" and the lord is going to smite down those who didn't
think so. It strikes me that gods in most religions in the west smite
down lots of people too.

Since you've apparently read it, and I have admitted that I couldn't
wade through it, why don't you tell me? How much hatred is in the
Qu'ran? What passages did you personally find the most bothersome?

How is it that many, if not most, Muslims generally live peaceably,
while others blow themselves up? Is it possibly an issue with
interpretation?

[Clyde Slick]

On 28 Ian, 16:56, Bret Ludwig wrote:



Stratificationism means letting people hire and associate with others
as they see fit without restrictions, letting them self-separate as
they see fit. That's compatible with libertarianism, certainly.


It's no so liberating for the
guy who wants to get hired, but, instead,
gets discriminated against because of race, or what have you.

[Clyde Slick]

On 28 Ian, 16:56, Bret Ludwig wrote:


I have no desire to deport blacks or other nonwhites who are here
legally and have been, but I certainly would restrict immigration very
severely. And I would give some preference to Europeans because they
are more likely to be in harmony with our sense of values, our society.

you mean YOUR sense of values.
you must figure that Europeans ar more likely to be racists.

[Jenn]

In article
,
Bret Ludwig wrote:

On Jan 28, 4:06 pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:
On Jan 28, 3:56 pm, Bret Ludwig wrote:

I have no desire to deport blacks or other nonwhites who are here
legally and have been, but I certainly would restrict immigration very
severely. And I would give some preference to Europeans because they
are more likely to be in harmony with our sense of values, our society.

Bratzi, if a large majority of legal residents of the US who are of
white European descent said that you and your views are not in harmony
with the values or culture of this country and this society, would you
leave?

More people agree with me than you think. Many won't ad mit it-yet.

When they do, stand by.

I'm curious (as always): If you agreed with Obama's positions, could
you vote for him?

[Clyde Slick]

On 28 Ian, 17:06, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:
On Jan 28, 3:56 pm, Bret Ludwig wrote:

I have no desire to deport blacks or other nonwhites who are here
legally and have been, but I certainly would restrict immigration very
severely. And I would give some preference to Europeans because they
are more likely to be in harmony with our sense of values, our society.

Bratzi, if a large majority of legal residents of the US who are of
white European descent said that you and your views are not in harmony
with the values or culture of this country and this society, would you
leave?

Just say the word "yes" and the petition drive is on. I'll even buy
you a one-way ticket to Iran.

Where is the latest bastion of white supremacy?

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jan 28, 5:30*pm, Bret Ludwig wrote:
On Jan 28, 4:06 pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to wrote:
On Jan 28, 3:56 pm, Bret Ludwig wrote:

*I have no desire to deport blacks or other nonwhites who are here
legally and have been, but I certainly would restrict immigration very
severely. And I would give some preference to Europeans because they
are more likely to be in harmony with our sense of values, our society..

Bratzi, if a large majority of legal residents of the US who are of
white European descent said that you and your views are not in harmony
with the values or culture of this country and this society, would you
leave?

*More people agree with me than you think. Many won't ad mit it-yet.

*When they do, stand by.

You didn't answer my question, Bratzi. "More" does not represent "a
large majority". I'd imagine both of you get together for strudel
occasionally too, and link arms and sing the Horst Wessel song and
****.

So why not answer the question, unless you are too pitifully stupid to
understand it.

[Clyde Slick]

On 28 Ian, 18:40, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:
On Jan 28, 5:30 pm, Bret Ludwig wrote:



On Jan 28, 4:06 pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to wrote:
On Jan 28, 3:56 pm, Bret Ludwig wrote:

I have no desire to deport blacks or other nonwhites who are here
legally and have been, but I certainly would restrict immigration very
severely. And I would give some preference to Europeans because they
are more likely to be in harmony with our sense of values, our society.

Bratzi, if a large majority of legal residents of the US who are of
white European descent said that you and your views are not in harmony
with the values or culture of this country and this society, would you
leave?

More people agree with me than you think. Many won't ad mit it-yet.

When they do, stand by.

You didn't answer my question, Bratzi. "More" does not represent "a
large majority". I'd imagine both of you get together for strudel
occasionally too, and link arms and sing the Horst Wessel song and
****.

So why not answer the question, unless you are too pitifully stupid to
understand it.

Not that there is anything wrong with strudel.

[Jenn]

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...459776273/1013

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.

[Jenn]

In article
,
Clyde Slick wrote:

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


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.

But hate crimes are not really based on hate, they are based on
only on attitudes towards race, gender preference and religion.

No, one can have any attitude they wish to have!

I may hate my neighbor for various other reasons, and it would
not be classified as a hate crime.

Correct. And one can hate anyone for ANY reason and it's not a hate
crime.

The better way is to charge two
separate crimes, the crime itself, and an additional charge for civil
rights
violations.

Perhaps so. That's what happens in many places.

I am in favor of criminalizing civil rights violations.
Bit call things want they are, and prove the civil
rights violation in court.

You have to do that with hate crimes as well. The goal of intimidation,
etc has to be proved. There are many times where the perp is found
guilty of the crime, but does not receive the enhanced penalty.

See, I am also in
favor of protecting the civil liberties
of those accused .

As am I, of course.

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.

[George M. Middius]

Clyde Slick said:

I have no desire to deport blacks or other nonwhites who are here
legally and have been, but I certainly would restrict immigration very
severely. And I would give some preference to Europeans because they
are more likely to be in harmony with our sense of values, our society.

you mean YOUR sense of values.
you must figure that Europeans ar more likely to be racists.

Ask him about the different colored birdies, and how Nature didn't mean
for the blue birds and the yellow birds to miscegenate.

[George M. Middius]

Shhhh! said:

You didn't answer my question, Bratzi. "More" does not represent "a
large majority". I'd imagine both of you get together for strudel
occasionally too, and link arms and sing the Horst Wessel song and
****.

I would appreciate it if you didn't link strudel -- a fine Austrian pastry
-- with Bratzi's self-serving racialism. TIA.

[Jenn]

In article
,
Bret Ludwig wrote:

On Jan 28, 5:37 pm, Jenn wrote:
In article
,
Bret Ludwig wrote:



On Jan 28, 4:06 pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:
On Jan 28, 3:56 pm, Bret Ludwig wrote:

I have no desire to deport blacks or other nonwhites who are here
legally and have been, but I certainly would restrict immigration
very
severely. And I would give some preference to Europeans because they
are more likely to be in harmony with our sense of values, our
society.

Bratzi, if a large majority of legal residents of the US who are of
white European descent said that you and your views are not in harmony
with the values or culture of this country and this society, would you
leave?

More people agree with me than you think. Many won't ad mit it-yet.

When they do, stand by.

I'm curious (as always): If you agreed with Obama's positions, could
you vote for him?

Certainly.

OK.

[Clyde Slick]

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.

Your definition is off the mark.

[Clyde Slick]

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

[Clyde Slick]

On 28 Ian, 19:02, George M. Middius cmndr _ george @ comcast . net
wrote:
Clyde Slick said:

I have no desire to deport blacks or other nonwhites who are here
legally and have been, but I certainly would restrict immigration very
severely. And I would give some preference to Europeans because they
are more likely to be in harmony with our sense of values, our society.

you mean YOUR sense of values.
you must figure that Europeans ar more likely to be racists.

Ask him about the different colored birdies, and how Nature didn't mean
for the blue birds and the yellow birds to miscegenate.


Is it a coincidence that starlings are black??

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jan 28, 5:29*pm, Bret Ludwig wrote:
On Jan 28, 4:40 pm, ScottW wrote:

*How about the Quran? * How much hate is in that book?

*A bunch.

2pid and Bratzi find common ground...again.

So Bratzi, does 2pid represent the 'majority' you claim to have? Will
you leave the US if I can prove that a majority don't agree with you
that your values represent the values of our society?

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jan 28, 5:38*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:
On 28 Ian, 17:06, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

Bratzi, if a large majority of legal residents of the US who are of
white European descent said that you and your views are not in harmony
with the values or culture of this country and this society, would you
leave?

Just say the word "yes" and the petition drive is on. I'll even buy
you a one-way ticket to Iran.

Where is the latest bastion of white supremacy?

It's a belief that's generally been out of favor since April of 1945.
I think South Africa was probably the last one.

It appears that in Bratzi's psychotic dreamworld even blacks are white
supremacists.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jan 28, 7:00*pm, Jenn wrote:
In article
,
*Bret Ludwig wrote:





On Jan 28, 5:37 pm, Jenn wrote:
In article
,
*Bret Ludwig wrote:

On Jan 28, 4:06 pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:
On Jan 28, 3:56 pm, Bret Ludwig wrote:

*I have no desire to deport blacks or other nonwhites who are here
legally and have been, but I certainly would restrict immigration
very
severely. And I would give some preference to Europeans because they
are more likely to be in harmony with our sense of values, our
society.

Bratzi, if a large majority of legal residents of the US who are of
white European descent said that you and your views are not in harmony
with the values or culture of this country and this society, would you
leave?

*More people agree with me than you think. Many won't ad mit it-yet.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jan 28, 5:50*pm, ScottW wrote:
On Jan 28, 3:25*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

From what I did read it seemed to me exactly like any other religious
book, including the christian bible, reads: lots of "we're the only
true religion" and the lord is going to smite down those who didn't
think so.

*One difference....the Quran doesn't say wait for the lord.

Neither does the bible.

It strikes me that gods in most religions in the west smite
down lots of people too.

Since you've apparently read it, and I have admitted that I couldn't
wade through it, why don't you tell me? How much hatred is in the
Qu'ran? What passages did you personally find the most bothersome?

9:5. Then when the Sacred Months (the 1st, 7th, 11th, and 12th months
of the Islamic calendar) have passed, then kill the Mushrikun
{unbelievers} wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege
them, and prepare for them each and every ambush. But if they repent
and perform As-Salat (Iqamat-as-Salat {the Islamic ritual prayers}),
and give Zakat {alms}, then leave their way free. Verily, Allah is Oft-
Forgiving, Most Merciful.

So we could anticipate that these 'true believers' would not kill
during the months which correspond to whatever months these are in our
calendar. If they're going to follow their religion, they should
follow it. It strikes me that many aren't, just as many don't follow
the bible of whatever religion they belong to. Most people can't keep
new year's resolutions, so that isn't surprising.

How is it that many, if not most, Muslims generally live peaceably,
while others blow themselves up? Is it possibly an issue with
interpretation?

So they say....but how to interpret 9:5 in an
acceptable way?

I guess the same way that I'd interpret Joshua 23.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jan 28, 5:29*pm, Bret Ludwig wrote:
On Jan 28, 4:40 pm, ScottW wrote:





On Jan 28, 2:10 pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
On Jan 28, 3:59 pm, Bret Ludwig wrote:

*What is hate? Who defines it? Why are certain preferences hate and
others, such as found in Mein Tampf or the Talmud or other explicitly
racist works, not hate? When is this decision made? Where are your
criteria derived from?

You're the only person I've ever heard who has said "Mein Kampf" is
not full of hate.

*A book no one reads.

*How about the Quran? * How much hate is in that book?

*A bunch.

*The Old Testament (and arguably the New), the Talmud

Say, Bratzi, could you give me the chapter and verse where this so-
called hatred and racism is found in the Talmud?

You see, I just found this, and it seems like it might have been
written just for you!:

Some groups and individuals consider that passages in the Talmud show
that Judaism is inherently racist. In reply it is suggested that the
passages do not indicate inherent racism on the part of the Talmud
(and Judaism), but rather mistranslation, falsification, and selective
choice of quotes out of context, on the part of those making the
charges. Confusion also arises as to whether controversial ideas come
from the Holy Bible itself or originate with the Talmud.

The complexity of the Talmud contributes to misunderstanding. Written
like the transcript of a debate, the text often states propositions,
which are then knocked down during the subsequent debate. Thus many
statements in the Talmud represent ideas eventually rejected by
Rabbinic thought. Moreover, the Talmud focuses on topics one at a
time, and includes many statements within that discussion that are not
to be taken as doctrine outside of that topic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talmud#...porary_attacks

So lay them on me, Bratzi. I strongly suspect that you can't, and that
you are merely parroting the thoughts of one of your beloved hate-
mongers, but I thought I'd ask.

[George M. Middius]

Shhhh! said:

It appears that in Bratzi's psychotic dreamworld even blacks are white
supremacists.

Are you thinking of Chappelle's version of a white supremacist? That was
one of his best sketches.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jan 29, 12:03*am, "ScottW" wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote
On Jan 28, 5:50 pm, ScottW wrote:

On Jan 28, 3:25 pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
From what I did read it seemed to me exactly like any other religious
book, including the christian bible, reads: lots of "we're the only
true religion" and the lord is going to smite down those who didn't
think so.

One difference....the Quran doesn't say wait for the lord.

Neither does the bible.

It strikes me that gods in most religions in the west smite
down lots of people too.

Since you've apparently read it, and I have admitted that I couldn't
wade through it, why don't you tell me? How much hatred is in the
Qu'ran? What passages did you personally find the most bothersome?

9:5. Then when the Sacred Months (the 1st, 7th, 11th, and 12th months
of the Islamic calendar) have passed, then kill the Mushrikun
{unbelievers} wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege
them, and prepare for them each and every ambush. But if they repent
and perform As-Salat (Iqamat-as-Salat {the Islamic ritual prayers}),
and give Zakat {alms}, then leave their way free. Verily, Allah is Oft-
Forgiving, Most Merciful.

:So we could anticipate that these 'true believers' would not kill
:during the months which correspond to whatever months these are in our
:calendar.

Well, that is reassuring.

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?

:If they're going to follow their religion, they should
:follow it.

Spoken like a true islamist.

It seems, 2pid, that these scary Muslims are "directed by god" to blow
people up. So these people, eager to please their god, blow people up.
They must do so, as it says so in the Qu'ran. 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?

I'll look at your (and other like-'minded' people) "redneck" logic at
the end of this post.

: It strikes me that many aren't, just as many don't follow
:the bible of whatever religion they belong to.

That ****es Osama off too.

Why would you assume that "****es me off"? And what has this to do
with anything?

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

How is it that many, if not most, Muslims generally live peaceably,
while others blow themselves up? Is it possibly an issue with
interpretation?

So they say....but how to interpret 9:5 in an
acceptable way?

:I guess the same way that I'd interpret Joshua 23.

Like an atheist?

That certainly does give me a bias.

Did you read Joshua 23? These Muslims are simply fulfilling biblical
prophesy. You should be happy. Rapture is near!

LOL!

-----Redneck 'Logic'----

From your beloved JihadWatch blog, 2pid:

The history of Europe from 711 (the invasion of Spain) to 1689 (the
siege of Vienna) is one long Muslim siege, with Europe pushing the
front line forward or back according to strength and good fortune. But
the siege as such was not broken until the decisive war that ended in
1714, in which the power of Turkey to threaten the Habsburg lands (and
consequently the heartland of Europe) was broken for ever; and even
so, the cruel pirates of Barbary continued to raid European coasts in
search of light-skinned slaves, until the early nineteenth century. If
this depth of history does not teach us that the normal relationship
between Islam and the rest of the world is war, nothing will. Quotes
from this or that Muslim authority are rather beside the point: they
will only convince those who can be convinced, but they will simply
fly past the large class of deluded pacifists like water off a duck's
back.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/004855.php

Scary, huh? I think we'd better declare war now. Oh, wait. bushie
already has. LOL!

[Arny Krueger]

"ScottW" wrote in message

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote in message
...
On Jan 28, 5:50 pm, ScottW wrote:
On Jan 28, 3:25 pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

From what I did read it seemed to me exactly like any
other religious book, including the christian bible,
reads: lots of "we're the only true religion" and the
lord is going to smite down those who didn't think so.

One difference....the Quran doesn't say wait for the
lord.

Neither does the bible.


Except in Psalms 27:14, 37:14, Isaiah 40:31, Lamentations 3:25, 1
Corinthians 1:7, and other places depending on the translation and your
exegesis.