Tyler Clementi

[fabulouslyghetto]

Oh the irony, taking one tiny percentile of a person's beliefs and making character assessments, if that's not black-and-white thinking I'm not sure I understand what black-and-white thinking is.

Aren't some situations cut-and-dry? Do you wanna be treated like everyone else or not? If there's more to it than that, skip the insults and try explaining.

 

[Telstra]

I'm noticing this is going the same way as the other thread.



Quote from TriBi:
I am closing this thread for a while to allow emotions to cool off.

There have been more insults flung around than I am prepared to try and clean up...
a) because I have better things to do with my time
b) if I did there likely wouldn't be enough left to be intelligible.

I would remind people to debate the subject - not attack the poster.

I may re-open this thread later. IF I do so I expect people to continue to post in accordance with the CoC - I hope everyone is aware of the consequences of NOT doing so.

 

[fetaby]

Johann, I think we're still waiting for that start. Did you just seriously tell Karen he needs to stick with telling jokes and leave the legalese to "the big boys"?

and that part about other talents that aren't readily appearent?

 

[fabulouslyghetto]

However, a career in law is not the most prudent course of action for everyone.

How pompous! I think it's time to bow out of this one, I can't stand it when a topic becomes less about the topic and more about how the other person just doesn't get it, their brain can't fathom, blah blah blah. That's what happened in the other topic and it ended up locked. Ciao!

 

[fetaby]

You missed the point, Fetaby.

My point is that not everybody is capable of thinking in a zillion shades of gray. That's pretty obvious in this thread, dontcha think? My point is that it is not required. Several people have said "a killing is a killing", an idea that's not only patently false, it also represents black-and-white thinking at its very worst. So thinking is now being thrown onto a good/bad dichotomy It's not "good" enough that people are willing to think, they must think a certain way? And failing to think inside your definition of what is just = being wrong... Dead is dead and how you get there is inconsequential if you are the one that is in the ground. The laws, the enforcement of them, is suited for the living.

Those JUBbers are also the type of people who think,"You either like a person, or you don't", and that's also a black-and-white sentiment, one which has always bewildered me. I see people in a zillion shades of gray, and I can honestly say there're very few people on JUB that I actually dislike. And here we agree. But if that were true, you'd spend more time reading and less time performing character assassination.

And, yeah, Fetaby, Karen Walker and three others mentioned don't have the right kind of thinking to be good lawyers. You are not an unintelligent man yourself, and I'm sure you yourself can see this, even if it's through the haze of a cloud-filled room.

Before we get any further I'd like to address this issue of character assassination... This is the second time you've claimed use of drugs on my part. Explain yourself... Better yet, don't bother, I'll do it for you. You wish to discredit my stance and opinions on the basis that my capacity has been diminished as a result of drug use. But what you fail to realize is that I've been clean for over a decade. So your claim of me being in a "haze of a cloud-filled room" is patently false. Doesn't really matter though since the purpose typing that phrase wasn't to lie, but to distort the value of my perception. Thanks...





-------------------------------------------------

Now to put this thing to bed....

The point of hate crime laws is to compensate for the inequality of society. There are factions of the population that would behave towards others in a less than civil fashion for no other reason than a characteristic that is uncontrolled.

Do hate crime laws protect people from being persecuted based on weight? preference in dress? style? diet? sexual activity? hair color? shoe size?

The over compensation for protected classes is there because we can't legislate thought. We can't stop a person from being a homophobe or a racist, but we can agree that these schools of thought have been deemed detrimental to the forward progress of our society.

And it does so with the justification of "history". However, people have been targeted for weight, appearance, level of sexual activity, hair color or texture etc for a really long time.

And these laws weren't enacted from the beginning of our legal system. Basically, we're learning as we go.

Suppose an individual was subjected to a criminal attack on the basis of hair color. It would seem an odd reason to attack someone. But no doubt it has happened. When I was in HS, a blonde girl had an ink pen busted over her head. Not because she was an asshole, but because she was blonde. And you know blondes have more fun right? And we can't have that right?

These laws exist because as a society we have failed. We have failed to treat others as equals from the beginning. But keep in mind that the same people who voted these laws in are the same people who bailed our banks out....

 

[fetaby]

You can't be serious. Do you really not understand the law? You don't even know what hate crimes are. This isn't about political correctness. It has nothing to do with political correctness.

The law does not create privilege characteristics. You're sitting here speaking out of thin air. The law is based on motives. And you can't compare some crimes with other crimes. Motives matter. Unfortunately the simpleton it doesn't... those who say "all murder is the same"...

Actually it is about political correctness, and I say good!

It seems political correctness is accomplishing the goals of equality that we as humans can not achieve by ourselves.

Everybody knows racism is wrong, but there are still racists.
Everybody knows homophobia is wrong, yet they still exist.
And the prejudices against people who are overweight or of a specific hair color are alive and kicking as well.

It's like zits. They form and you can't really do anything about them until they get big enough to treat.

You can't legislate a thought, but you can punish a behavior. Hate crime laws are the benzoyl peroxide.

Now we just have to realize how pimply society really is.

 

[fetaby]

Higher degree?

Is there anyone out there who isn't protected by hate crime laws?

Higher degree of protection based on what is considered hate...

 

[blackbeltninja]

Higher degree?

Is there anyone out there who isn't protected by hate crime laws?

Satanists.

-d-

 

[fetaby]

In terms of this disagreement about the law, every single word that has come out of his mouth has reflected "black-and-white thinking"—the death knell to legal arguments

No, just that his white argument if the other side of the fence to your black argument. The only difference is that you're arguing from a perspective of the law that has already been established. That doesn't make it correct, just agreed upon.

And as my correspondent Construct has said, further elaboration on this matter really is an exercise in futility.

Lazy....

 

[metta]

"Prosecutors in at least one other U.S. case have argued that a defendant's efforts to delete his social-media postings essentially amounted to evidence tampering."


Tweeting, deleting help build Rutgers webcam case

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_rutgers_suicide

This has over 5,000 comments. I don't understand why it says that article was posted a little over 2 hours ago but some of the comments are days old.

Here is one of them:
"I was bullied in junior high Not only did the teacher do nothing she also said things. Trust me its something you never forget or get over.I am glad people today are finally starting to realize what this does to people Back then I had no one to talk to or to get help Thanks for nothing Miss Buvonia German Class Grover Cleveland Junior High School also in NJ"

 

[blackbeltninja]

This is about protecting marginalized and targeted minorities. Overweight and obese people will soon make up a majority in this country. If they haven't already.

You're the one who is insulting my intelligence, and you have no understanding of hte law. I don't know what I'm talking about? I know full well about the law, especially hate crime laws and the reason why they are implemented. They have been upheld by courts.

Jesus, guy, Lucky's point is simple.

He could beat up 100 fat people because he hates fat people. Would hate crime charges be brought against him? Because there isn't one on the books yet explicitly protecting fat people, like there is for gays, religious groups and races.

Thus, why is the targeting of (protected marginilised group) viewed more severely by the law over (unprotected group)?

This is really not rocket science, if I understand it right*.

-d-
*and I'm sure I do

 

[metta]

^
(btw...i have not read all of these posts...only this last one...so I may have missed some stuff)

there is a good reason why hates crime legislations for specific groups is necessary.... because there is plenty of evidence that specific marginalized groups have been ignored. And by emphasizing specific groups, it makes it harder for them to be ignored because they have federal recognition. if the state or local authorities ignore it, then there are other support systems in place on the federal level because of these laws.

 

[fetaby]

something like weight is something that is ignored. People being persecuted for being sexually active or promiscuous is something that is also ignored but has happened throughout history and still happens to this day.

But are the persecutions criminal offenses?

 

[blackbeltninja]

This is not relevant and has no bearing on the subject. His point is indeed simple, and completely invalid. I have yet to see a SINGLE reason that these laws are unconstitutional.

Eh?

How is it NOT relevant? Point is, a hate crime can go unprosecuted as a hate crime if protection of the group being injured is not on the books. This means that these groups are not afforded as much protection under the law; or that your hating them is ignored by the state when it comes to charges.

Let's assume for the sake of argument that the victim in this case was spied on, filmed and internetted for being fat, not gay. Same tragic results - kid commits suicide. Does the state level hate crime charges now, in addition to the invasion of privacy and whatever else?

If not, the state simply does not view the anti-fat aspect as strongly as they would view the anti-gay aspect. In short, don't fuck with sexuality, religion or race; but hating fatties is not all that bad.

-d-

 

[blackbeltninja]

^That's your opinion.

You still haven't answered the question - will the state level hate crime charges for a "non-protected" group if there clearly is a hate motive?

-d-
PS: Religion is hardly immutable, and that's protected...

 

[blackbeltninja]

That's perhaps the weakest retort from you yet.

Weak it may be, but it's still true. Isn't it? The Law doesn't look for strong or weak, it looks for precedent and the interpretation of how it should be applied to the facts (that's the true stuff, weak or not) of the case. Yes/no?

Ok, forget the obesity.

Pick something else which I could hate someone for which doesn't have a specific law attached to it. Would I be done for hate crimes, or just crimes?

Also, if I understand you, you're saying I could run a huge anti-fat movement and be done for inciting violence and all number of other disturbing the peace and GBH and whatever, but NOT be charged with a hate crime?

-d-

 

[blackbeltninja]

So you can't answer the question. Ok.

Just say that next time.

-d-

 

[fetaby]

Then everything else you said has no relevance. They are either constitutional or not. They are legal, just and appropriate. What other argument will I make here?

And for how many years were sodomy laws on the books?

Just because something is legal, it doesn't make it just.

Currently it is also on the books that two men who decide to marry will not be recognized by the national government, would you stand behind that law?

 

[blackbeltninja]

You're asking loaded questions. It just goes to show your argument is emotional, ridiculous and not based on any resemblance of reality.

That's NOT how people operate in academic and intellectual settings.

Sorry, son, I work in a university. This is EXACTLY how the academic environment operates. Co-incidentally, it's also exactly how the courts operate. You think people testifying are not asked loaded questions? Jeebers, what planet do you live on?

While I'm at it, are hate crimes not completely emotional?

What question were you asking anyways? You're just making statements and putting question marks at the end. I sense you're not the most mature here.

Have a nice day.

I sense you can't read, but hey - swings and roundabouts, eh? Still, lemme help you out just so it's here again in black and white, several times:

You still haven't answered the question - will the state level hate crime charges for a "non-protected" group if there clearly is a hate motive?

Pick something else which I could hate someone for which doesn't have a specific law attached to it. Would I be done for hate crimes, or just crimes?

But you don't need to worry - Mitchymo has answered the question for you.

-d-

 

[blackbeltninja]

I honestly for the life of me cannot see why some people are failing to see the logic of this law, and even more so, are using such ridiculous examples of how it protects majority unmarginalised groups and not 'fat people' for example.
Hate crime protects EVERYBODY, however marginalised or not they are. The groups which are expressly protected, are ones which are MOST likely, in a world of bigotry, to suffer unfairly at the hands of hatred.

I don't think anyone is disputing the logic of protecting groups traditionally oppressed by bigotry; the point Lucky was making - and I think it is a good one - is that certain things which might not be bigotry-related are no less heinous than those which are, and to deem certain ones "worthy" of a stiffer sentence carries the connotation that these crimes are worse even though the net result of the crime is identical. At the end of the day, we're looking at the effect - that it is as tragic what happened regardless of the whys and wherefores and that looking at these whys and wherefores will not alter the facts and shouldn't alter the outcome - and you guys are looking at the cause, saying the circumstances matter as much as the tragedy.

This will probably open another can of worms, but if one takes the example of Shari'a/Islamic law it is tradtionally applied equally regardless of circumstance. Theft by a poor man to feed his family out of desperation and necessity is deemed as bad as theft for the purposes of greed or laziness. It's not to say that the laws themselves are necessarily correct or morally superior and certainly in many cases are hardly current with the times, but this binary practice does eliminate the multitude of grays which simply complicate matters in cases such as these.

-d-