Bad headline of the day, from the front page of this morning's News & Record: "Foxx irks gays with comment on killing."

I guess "Foxx irks decent people across the spectrum of sexual preference and practice with comment on killing" didn't fit, what with the new constraints on space.

Comments

[Roch101]

CP, the opinion you pasted is either inline with the facts or not, which you can acknowledge or ignore. Deflecting with a red herring is lame and boring.

[cheripickr]

Uh-oh, I sense a lackey monkey dolt idiot redux coming on. Time to back down.

[Patrick]

It's interesting that folks who think laws that limit civil marriage to people of different genders are not discriminatory because they apply equally to everyone also think a law that penalizes crimes motivated by sexual orientation are discriminatory. Seems like situational reasoning motivated by prejudice.

There are plenty of good, non-bigoted reasons to be troubled by hate crimes laws. It's true that intent and state of mind are always at issue in analysis of crime, and in many civil offenses as well. Someone mentioned above crimes of passion as an example of that. Passion, however, is usually a basis for decreasing punishment for an act, not increasing it, on the theory that passion diminishes the perpetrator's capacity to form the requisite criminal intent. The classic example is the cuckold who catches his cheating wife in flagrante delicto and kills her and/or her lover. Those guys were usually charged with manslaughter rather than murder, their passion being thought to deprive them of the ability to generate intent to commit murder. So, if someone hates straight white men so much that she needs to kill one of them, should she be punished more or less?

[Steve Harrison]

"...the militant homosexual activists are spewing the invectives."

Here's some real invective-spewing, CP.

[Ed Cone]

I'm following the discussion without too much trouble, thnx, CP.

I think the tangent taken in the column ("If you want to witness a clinic in 'hate,' watch the YouTube video...) shows a certain lack of perspective. Perhaps you see it differently.

[Spag]

CP, reason and following arguments to their logical conclusion will get you nowhere with this crowd, which is why Ed must casually dismiss your observations.

Roch fails to state one benefit of this legislation even as he asks others to prove a detriment.

[Jeffrey Sykes]

I just realized that we are living in an objectivist age and that there is no difference between right and left.

Its a very liberating realization, though I prefer it not.

[Roch101]

"Roch fails to state one benefit of this legislation even as he asks others to prove a detriment."

Sam, please. You are embarrassing yourself. I have not asked anybody to prove a determinant and have, in FACT, pointed out some of its determinants myself in this very thread. Come back to earth, Tinkerbell.

[cheripickr]

Yeah Sam, he's done nothing more than throw out the usual "deflection, distortion, straw-man, red-herring, facade-constructing" yada-yada-yada dismissals. Give him a break.

[Ed Cone]

And another thread that started out well begins to degenerate into the same old same old. Boring. Have a great weekend, folks.

[cheripickr]

No Ed, wait,.....don't leave, I'll be better, I promise.....

[Roch101]

CP,

You pasted an opinion that said this legislation, if passed, would codify "the notion that certain groups of citizens, such as homosexuals, are entitled to greater legal protection than others..."

I wrote that that is wrong. What do you think? Is what you posted right or wrong?

[Roch101]

"determinants" above -- Ooops: Detriments.

[Fred Gregory]

Well it is about time to hear from the libertarian, conservative, catholic, gay guy, Andrew Sullivan.

The Case Against Hate Crimes Laws

"I'm for getting rid of all of these laws, as attacks on freedom of thought. I also think the current proposal is a bit of flim-flam that will likely make no difference in the real world. But the GOP hysteria over this hate crime law, as opposed to all the others, seems obviously a case of prima facie homophobia. That bigotry obscures the serious case to be made that all these laws are unnecessary infringements on freedom of thought and corrosive of equality under the law."

Question: Is his use of flim-flam like Foxx's use of hoax ?

[cheripickr]

"Here's some real invective-spewing, CP."

Steve, that was one of the most nauseating things I have ever viewed. Now cheer me back up.

[James]

No kidding, CP.

So here's my question. This person believe that god is telling her what to do, all the while most people would say she's flat out nuts. But how is that different than anyone else claiming they're doing god's work or following god's will?

Once religion or "god's will" becomes an acceptable explanation for any public policy, it becomes an acceptable explanation for every public policy. Who are we to say that god doesn't hate fags? Does any of us know what god thinks any more accurately than what this woman thinks?

This is exactly why I take a zero tolerance approach to allowing anyone to inject god into any public policy issue.

[cheripickr]

That's a damn good question and I don't have an easy answer. I don't know if a president praying for the wisdom to do the right thing would result in a different course of action than the same person with the same brain relying on every other resource at his disposal short of prayer. It's bigger than my caveman mind.

[Roch101]

"Is his use of flim-flam like Foxx's use of hoax ?" -- Fred

Yes, in a two year-old "that word is like the other" Sesame Street kind of way. No, in context.

But Sullivan is right about the anti-homosexual bigotry fomenting opposition to this bill and obscuring meaningful discussion of the law's shortcomings.

[Steve Harrison]

"Steve, that was one of the most nauseating things I have ever viewed. Now cheer me back up."

Okay, here goes: It's Friday! Yaaay!

Which...is kind of weird, actually. Being unemployed, I don't know why Fridays still make me feel good. It's not like I've been toiling my ass off all week, and now I get a few days of rest. I guess maybe weekends produce less guilt, because a majority of the population is "off", instead of just us 11% or so. Jesus. Now you need to cheer me up, pal. :/

[Thomas]

"Is his use of flim-flam like Foxx's use of hoax ?" -- Fred

He said the proposed law was "a bit of flim flam". She said the claim that Shephard was beaten and murdered because he was gay is a hoax.

Big difference to me.

[Steve Harrison]

For those who don't see why there should be a distinction/added deterrent/heightened punishment for what we (as a society) have determined to be a hate crime, consider the following:

When an assailant attacks someone because of an issue specific to that person (escalating argument, jealousy, perceived insult, property dispute, etc.), his attack represents temporary situational rage: "I hate you!". When the motivation for the attack is based on race, gender, sexual orientation, etc., the attack represents the much broader "I hate you people!"

That is neither temporary nor limited to one person: the possible future situations and potential victim pool number in the thousands.

The goal of hate crimes legislation is not to award some victims with extra justice, it's a recognition of the increased danger to society of certain sociopathic tendencies.

[Jeffrey Sykes]

@James:"But how is that different than anyone else claiming they're doing god's work or following god's will?"

That was the subject of a great book. It's not about policy, but very interesting nonetheless.

[Jeffrey Sykes]

Although Bob Marley put it another way more than 130 years later:

Ini nah come to fight flesh and blood,
But spiritual wickedness in igh and low places.
So while they fight you down,
Stand firm and give jah thanks and praises.
cos ini no expect to be justified
By the laws of men - by the laws of men.
Oh, true they have found me guilty,
But through - through jah proved my innocency.

Oh, when the rain fall, fall, fall now,
It dont fall on one mans housetop. remember that:
When the rain fall,
It dont fall on one mans housetop.

[Spag]

Roch, over at Guarino's you repeated this theme:

"I raised that very point, Everest, over at Ed Cone's blog asking how the punishment for the murderers of Matt Shepard would have been different under this new legislation. As far as I can tell, it wouldn't have been different at all."

That is what I am referring to. The essence of your arguments seems to be that there is no need to oppose this law because it doesn't really change anything.

I also think it's funny that you call me "Tinkerbell" on a thread about hate crimes as they apply to homosexuality. You also seem to be getting quite full of yourself lately here and elsewhere and usually with arguments that aren't that clever or creative as you seem to think. I also notice a nasty tone with people who have tried to have a reasoned discussion with you but simply disagree. If someone calls you an asshole of starts getting snarky with you, then fine, all bets are off. But I don't see that happening yet you have been attacking a lot of people. Anyway, I digress.

Steve, the problem is that in America people have a right to hate even if it is irrational and even if unpopular. If you start punishing the hate, you run afoul of those rights. There is simply no need to punish crimes resulting from hate any more than any other crime except to use the criminal code to force a conforming social view that is otherwise protected speech. That road ends in tyranny and the thought police. I am amazed at the number of liberals who support such things. It's just like political correctness- an idea that is dominated by liberals who claim to believe in free speech. It is these patterns that caused every Left wing movement in history to turn into an authoritarian and oppressive regime.

[James]

Jeffrey, thanks for the link to the book. Much appreciated.

[Spag]

I'm still waiting for my autographed copy.

[Steve Harrison]

Sam, our criminal justice system is riddled with varying levels of guilt and punishment, and many of them are baseD on motive. We classify premeditated murder as 3 or 4 tiers higher than spur-of-the-moment wrongful death. Isn't that unfairly punishing someone for "thought crime"? NO. When the thought matures into action, the thought must be considered as part of the crime.

Look, I understand the slippery-slopedness of this, and I'm of the mind that achieving the level of a hate crime should be extremely difficult, and one that a prosecuting attorney should only contemplate if the evidence is overwhelming. And if it is overwhelming, it should also have some acknowledgment of diminished capacity attached, you know? You can't get to one without the other, in my mind.

[Jeffrey Sykes]

James: You are welcome. If you are interested, you may enjoy this podcast.

[Spag]

Steve, what part of the current laws are inadequate to deal with punishing someone for killing out of hate?

You confuse motive with state of mind. Motive is not an element of murder.

[Fred Gregory]

Thomas/Roch,

Thanks for paying attention.

Bingo. You got it. There is a difference between flim-flam and hoax in the context as used by the parties. Now do you see that hate crimes laws as Andrew Sullivan points out are as supperfluous as a group of a team's fans singing the below song when victory is certain. Not as deep as " Fear and Trembling " but I think the Sam wins the debate. Now the N&R can put Burr's ATM comment back on the front page. He should thank Foxx for bumping the story instead of speaking ill of a fellow Republican. Richard ..shut up !

Na Na Na, Hey Hey

[Roch101]

Sam, yes it is true, I am finding it hard to take seriously or remain patient with people who put words in my mouth or pretend they are interested in a conversation but will resort to distortions, diversions and obstinate ignorance -- anything not to have to admit an error of fact or faulty reasoning. I am of the opinion that such behavior is idiotic. Sorry if my disappointment is showing.

[Roch101]

CP,

You pasted an opinion that said this legislation, if passed, would codify "the notion that certain groups of citizens, such as homosexuals, are entitled to greater legal protection than others..."

I wrote that that is wrong. What do you think? Is what you posted right or wrong?

[confused]

I'll try again:

is there agreement that there's something different between 'murder' and 'genocide'?

if so, then why not similar differences for domestic crimes?

[Steve Harrison]

"Motive is not an element of murder."

Motive is critical in proving intent, and intent is necessary for a wrongful death to rise above manslaughter to the level of murder.

All this actual learning and practicing of law has ruined you, Sam. You need to watch Law & Order more often. :)

[cheripickr]

"...but will resort to distortions, diversions and obstinate ignorance".

The problem is, your criteria for these oft-repeated labels and insults, as well as others you hurl around, seems to be the mere act of disagreeing with you. You just come across as having this big chip on your shoulder daring anyone to knock it off. I don't mind a healthy debate, but with you , I either leave a short, straight opinion and get blasted for my "wrongness", or have to write an essay to cover all the predictable ad nauseum straw man, deflection crap that’s sure to come and that doesn't shed light on anything except how pissed off you are.

Take it somewhere else. I can get liberal viewpoints from less nasty sources. If in disagreeing with you, I define myself as either ignorant, or deliberately deceitful, what possible benefit could you derive from conversing with me anyway? Go find yourself some smarter, more honest penpals.

To answer your question though, I think that statement above, taken in and of itself, is closer to being correct than incorrect, recognizing, as reasonable would (see Harrison above) that it's not like a black and white math equation, with an absolute right or wrong answer. I recognize that you think it's absolutely wrong (and that anyone who doesn't must be an unequivocal moron, an affirmer of dedication to ignorance,, etc, etc... ) Score yourself a 100, consider yourself fortunate in your omniscience, and if possible, learn to suffer fools a little more graciously.

[Spag]

What CP said, my translation of your reaction Roch is the same. Much of what you label deceit, etc is merely disagreement over interpretation. The impression you are giving is that your interpretation is the only correct one and anyone who disagrees is a liar, moron, etc.

[Roch101]

A fool's excuse: "I am entitled to my interpretation of the facts."

Yes, people who are unable to discern the validity of assertions of facts are either liars or morons.

[Roch101]

CP, you need to re-read this thread. See where it diverted from the facts. I am not surprised or concerned that you are bothered by me noting when people fail to take responsibility for their statements or reasoning.

[Spag]

Roch, go back and re-read the sentence where I wrote "You also seem to be getting quite full of yourself lately here and elsewhere and usually with arguments that aren't that clever or creative as you seem to think."

Sometimes what constitute the "facts" are in dispute. In law, we usually resolve that with a trial. What I and others are hearing from you is that your version of what the facts are is unassailable and anyone who disagrees is a liar or moron.

[Roch101]

Sam, I noted you attributing to me statements I didn't make.

I asked CP to address the accuracy of an assertion made in something he pasted.

In both cases, instead of sticking to a discussion of the facts, instead of either of you owning what you had previously written and defending it or admitting error as may have been appropriate, you both diverted. CP with a "But, but what about Ed Cone?" and you by simply changing the subject.

I am happy to argue the facts with you or CP. But when you run away, I'll mock you for doing so.

[Spag]

Roch, show me where I haven't owned anything I've ever written. You are confusing me with Ed on that count.

Steve, sorry but you are wrong on the motive/intent thing.

[Roch101]

"Roch, show me where I haven't owned anything I've ever written. You are confusing me with Ed on that count." -- Sam

Can you grow up a little bit? "But, but Ed!" is just so damned childish. It might make you and CP tingle, but it's really just blindingly moronic.

To the point.

You wrote this:

"Roch fails to state one benefit of this legislation even as he asks others to prove a detriment."

That was wrong on the facts, I having noted benefits and NOT, in fact, asked anybody to prove a detriments (I actually noted some detriments myself).

So, you wrote something that was untrue. If you are a man of your word, you will accept responsibility for your erroneous statement, at least acknowledging it, if not apologizing for it.

[Roch101]

"Roch, show me where I haven't owned anything I've ever written."

Way to man up, little girl.

[Roch101]

Kick.

[Spag]

Roch, the only real area of disagreement is over the use of the word "prove". Sure, you never literally asked anyone to "prove" something, but my interpretation of your argument (mainly on Guarino) was that in the absence of a detriment, you win. You made several comments to the effect that the legislation would really have no effect different from the status quo (i.e., there is no detriment), to which my response is "why pass it then?". Sorry you didn't pick up on that.

Also, a Left wing, politically correct, sensitive 90's kind of guy, calling me a "little girl" is too funny. You liberal males are the epitome of the wussy, feminized Beta males that unfortunately are starting to grow in numbers.

[Roch101]

Sam, it's not that convoluted.

Did I "fail to state one benefit of this legislation?"

Where did I "asks others to prove a detriment?"

Explaining how your knee jerk interpretation is justification for you saying that I said something I did not say is not taking responsibility, little girl.