Fantasy Jawa Sumo Wrestling League (Fan Fiction Social Thread)

I strongly support Hate Crime legislation. Hate crime is what leads to a holocaust. Individualized crime can at least be deduced to a circumstance of some sort. Hate crime is far more insidious. Granted dead is dead, but the intent does matter.

 

do you support prohibition as well?

 

Did anything lead you up to this thought oqi? I feel like I'm hearing half a conversation.

All kidding aside, I agree. BUT, it needs to be enforced both ways. I've seen incidents of certain kids given basically a pass because traditionally they would be the victims of hate crimes.

 

Prohibition has nothing to do with Hate Crime.
Do you support the Nazis?

 

EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So, I'm watching game 1 of the MLB ALDS Red Sox-Angels Game 1 of the playoffs!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

actually, prohibition and hate crimes are both philosophy-based laws. IE someone hates a concept and decides to create laws to stop the concept and to stop people thinking in certain ways (no "hate" speech, don't drink, etc).

As for the Nazis, I don't support any socialist laws or organization. Which is why I don't support Hate Crime legislation.


correllian_ale - Oqi is responding to some posts a few pages back from around 10am board time today

 

Oh man, I'm going to hear all about the playoffs, but on the other side. My dad's a die-hard Cubs fan.

Aaaaand I'm in talks with the hopes of maybe possibly getting a job. One of my friends from SIGGRAPH referred me when he had an interview with a company, and they need game programmers. So they e-mailed me, I called in return, and now they're taking a good solid look at my resume.

 

Heee... I just get totally jazzed about my team being in the playoffs and a game on TV.

 

DWH, if, when you arrive, you seem to be in 8-bit, run! Run like your legs weren't crudely animated!

 

Corellian, NICE ICON! I wish I could change mine, but I am just as crazy about Pink 5 as I am about the Red Sox and I made myself a promise.

 

I'm trying to watch the game!

 

NOOOOOOOoooooooo..... not the 8-bit graphics! ANYTHING BUT THE 8-BIT GRAPHICS!!!

 

So, Corellian, was the call of Lugo out at 2nd in bottom of 2nd a dumb ump call or WHAT?!

 

The words I just expressed can not be repeated within these boards.

 

I just woke up from a nap. I hate having to take a nap at 7 PM.

And Christmas at Walmart's going fine. I'm pretty proud of the work we've done so far.

 

I know I know I know!

Cool, Striker!

 

One of the tings I look forward to in the Christmas season is the music on the radio. When certain songs come on, when it's just the staff (and/or very cool customers) in the bank, I change the words starting the second verse or refrain...it was an old drinking game my buddies and I played.

My co-workers say I ruin Christmas every year!

 

Just to flog the dead horse a bit regarding hate crime.

Were someone to ask me if I thought the motivations and thoughts behind someone killing another person matter, I would answer of course they do. Otherwise you had might as well remove the distinction between murder and manslaughter, given that the end result is exactly the same - somebody is dead. If that's your only criteria then you're much closer to a totalitarian regime than you are by offering minority groups protections.

I suspect if you don't see a reason for hate crime legislation then you are not affected in any way by hate crimes Or so would be my suspicion.

Anyway, damn. I should talk about baseball or something

 

yes, talk about baseball because THE RED SOX JUST HAD A 4-0 SHUTOUT IN 9 INNINGS AGAINST THE ANGELS!

 

I didn't say that motivations & thoughts behind someone killing another person didn't matter. I said they should not be legislated and that you should not be punished worse because your thoughts are not in the proper order while you're killing someone.

Consider this, what if a white man, coming from a KKK meeting rally accidentally hits a black man with his car, killing him instantly. Is that manslaughter or a hate crime? The way a lot of hate crime legislation is worded, it is hate crime because the white man obviously hates the black man.

so because I don't see the need for laws that give certain groups greater privileges and protection over other groups, then I'm wrong in some way?




baseball?? what's this baseball stuff?

 

I really shouldn't be speaking FOR someone, but I think L_P was making the point (the way I interpreted anyway) was that those subjected to hate crimes are probably gonna' see things much different than you do.

 

First off, the National Socialist Workers Party despite its name was not a socialist organization. Hilter's close relationship with the Junkers and the German industrialists removed any socialist connection from its political identity as well as in the mid-1920s the movement to replace many of urban Gauleiters who supported socialist agendas in the northern cities. Arguably Joseph Goebbels did retain some of his political affinities towards socialism, but the rest of the party and the party philosophies were staunchly totalitarian fascist.

The "non" socialist nature of the NDSAP is a rather elementary fact articulated and supported by majority of the scholarly monographs on totalitarianism in post WWI Germany. Granted there are a handful of arm-chair internet pundits who suggested otherwise, but historians have long since resolved this issue.



Secondly, as far as opposition to hate crimes legislation that's ultimately your opinion and hopefully others will see things more clearly, compassionately and rationally. Before I had to leave for class tonight I did a quick search of the organizations that support hate crime legislation and it was impressively diverse list that included a large number of religious groups representing mainline Christianity to nationally recognized advocate groups for religious/ethnic minorities to a large number of law enforcement agencies. It's far from being legislation meant to strip conservative white males of their rights.


Although, if you'd like to open a thread about this in the Senate I sure you'll find a great deal more debate.



In other news, I get to go to workshop that I've been wanting to go to AND it's almost Friday.

 

I will rejoice after I survive Organic Chem Lab tomorrow morning.
Must stay awake until I finish the Pre-Lab questions.
and drew that hand-drawn WHMIS label for methyl salicylate.

MUST STAY AWAKE...

must resist temptation to drink that lemon ice tea, lest my blood sugar spike.

Ah what the heck, it's caffeine time!

 

I'm going to pick up Futon's stick and keep on flogging, mostly because I'm a nerd and we're talking about similar stuff in class.

To me, there's a huge difference between hate crime legislation and Prohibition, partly because of the rationales behind the laws, and whether or not such legislation is eventually justified by whatever goal the government has in mind.

Furthermore, when a court applies hate crime legislation to a case, it's up to the jury to decide whether or not the evidence supports a label of "hate crime." Yes, you're going to have jurors bringing their personal experiences and opinions to the table, but they do that for every type of case. There's no guarantee that a KKK member who accidentally ran over a black man with his car would automatically be found guilty of a hate crime, if a jury looked at the evidence and found the hate unrelated to the crime.

Now, you could say that hate crime legislation is wrong and unconstitutional because it governs private actions. But so does the 13th Amendment, in a way - it's a complete ban on slavery, not just the slavery ordered by states but by individuals as well.

The legislation doesn't police your thoughts. It polices the actions arising from your thoughts. You can have the most awful thoughts a human being has ever had, and that's a-okay so long as you don't turn those thoughts into active violence. Otherwise, as oqi said, you eventually find yourself at the worst-case scenario of the Holocaust and the like. Part of the rationale behind the law is that a person who has the right to enjoy what the state provides cannot be attacked while enjoying those benefits simply for being "different."

edit: Also, depending on how things go, the legislation might apply not just to race/gender/usual suspects, but to aspects like sexual orientation, which can span several "traditional" groups. Something to think about.

 

What kind of workshop, oqi?

And... *celebrates that it's almost Friday*