Quote:
Originally Posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam
Second, no, what I "want" (or, rather, what I understand to be the point of hate crime legislation) is for their to be a recognition of and a penalty for the fact that, implicit in every lynching, is a death threat aimed at every member of the targeted group.
|
You want individuals separated into groups, much easier to manipulate their behavior that way, right?
Idiotic thinking like that will have brown eyed people lynching green eyed people you fucking moron.
Hey, your eye color does or does not allow special group privilege, therefore you should have animosity, nay, you must have anger for those other fucks with the wrong color eyes because those fucks do not have your group's eye color. |
ADAM IS THIS TRUE?!
Quote:
Originally Posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChuckF
Quote:
Originally Posted by JEROME DA GNOME
You have taken the ridiculous position that intention exhibited by action is equal to having the wrong thoughts.
|
I don't believe I have taken any such position. Can you show me where I have?
What is the murderer's malice aforethought but "having the wrong thoughts?"
The law constantly reaches into the mind of the actor to see what he was thinking, and may condemn or exonerate him on that basis. What is the key difference here? I think you're getting close here.
Remember this parenthetical. |
Chuck, the actions denote the determination. |
So it's OK for the state to punish someone for the content of his or her thoughts when that person's actions denote a determination to take such action? The state could punish a homophobe for killing a homosexual for being a homosexual since his actions in killing a homosexual denotes a determination to kill a homosexual? Is that what you're saying?