jbear

Participant
Post count: 3703

to prove my point about “there’s an alt-right talking point BEATEN into your head and REALITY CHECKS DONT MATTER

what are the odds that @JBears comes back in response the the thought post above with anything even close to “oh . . okay . . I understand that point now . . I didnt know that”?

hey @JBear?

https://www.npr.org/2012/04/10/150351860/are-hate-crime-laws-necessary

An interesting discussion about hate crime laws. Most of what you said is either not true or only half of the discussion so your comments about me really do circle back around on you as well. Specifically, my opinions are valid which I already know damned well but somehow have to end up proving to you every time we have a discussion. I’m open minded enough to see your point as what it is… your opinion, which by the way you are entitled to have. You have this whole other thing going on that seems a lot like a never ending troll if you ask me.

Here is a quote from the above link. Paul Butler is a professor of law at George Washington University:

MARTIN: And another criticism of hate crimes laws is that they punish thoughts, not behaviors. You know, the argument being that the behavior – assault, homicide, whatever is already punishable by the law and, in this case, you’re punishing a thought. It’s a thought crime. Do you have any thoughts about that?

BUTLER: You know, as a civil libertarian, as a big fan of the First Amendment, I have to say it concerns me. So, if we think about the Rutgers bullying case, if Mr. Ravi had been convicted of intimidating the victim there because he was a nerd or because he was skinny, then he’d get five years in prison. Because he was convicted of intimidating him because he’s gay or is perceived to be gay, he gets 10 years.

There is also an interesting paragraph about the difference between the state laws and the Federal Hate crime law that he says:

“Well, the federal law makes it a separate and distinct crime to target someone on the basis of race or gender or one of the other protected categories. What we have in the states is what we call sentencing enhancements,”

So look, I’m willing to accept that you have an opinion if you would accept the idea that people who disagree with are also entitled to a completely different take.

I still wonder the odds of you coming back with in response the the thoughtful post above with anything even close to “oh . . okay . . I understand that point now . . I didnt know that”?