TBD

RatBastard wrote:
The prevailing PC thought process is that just because a crime is committed upon a person of a protected class, it is by definition a 'hate crime'.  So if a person were to mug someone that is a member of one of many protected classes, they get more charges because it is automatically a hate crime. 

This is absolutely false.

Committing a crime on a member of a protected class is not automatically a hate crime.

Committing a crime on someone because they are a member (or perceived member) of a protected class is a hate crime.

Don't confuse the two.

RatBastard wrote:

James wrote:
But poor black people aren't.

RatBastard wrote:

atomicfront wrote:
The French and Polish armies had quite a few guns.  A lot of good it did them.

Guns are banned in Chicago, lots of good that is doing…

Wow how racist can one person be?  Hey at least you realize it isn't the guns doing the killing!

Okay Martin Luther King.  We get your point.

vansmack wrote:

RatBastard wrote:
The prevailing PC thought process is that just because a crime is committed upon a person of a protected class, it is by definition a 'hate crime'.  So if a person were to mug someone that is a member of one of many protected classes, they get more charges because it is automatically a hate crime. 

This is absolutely false.

Committing a crime on a member of a protected class is not automatically a hate crime.

Committing a crime on someone because they are a member (or perceived member) of a protected class is a hate crime.

Don't confuse the two.

The law still fails.

  1) There should be NO groups treated differently by being deemed protected.

  2) You are still ASSuming you know the reason the person committing a crime did so (except in the case that the individual expressly states that this is the reason).  Even in this case, any crime against ANYONE based on what 'group' of society they are a member of should be treated equally.  No group should get special or different treatment.

The RB pwnage in here is all kinds of excellent.
Diarrhea Planet will take over the world and rightfully so but SXSW is still a big stupid corporate mess.
Papa John's is not food.
Walkies is killing it in here.
Guns do, in fact, kill people.
Starbucks is, in fact, an authenticity shop and not a coffee shop.
I have, in fact, said not-so-flattering things about Barack Obama, Al Sharpton, Chris Matthews and Ed Schulz in this thread.

See you guys in another five pages!
Or in the two or three threads I do frequent.

Here.

http://www.justupthepike.com/2013/03/come-get-your-wheaton-plaza-t-shirt.html

Interesting. I know a few people who could use these.

Single magic mushroom 'can change personality'

RatBastard wrote:

vansmack wrote:

RatBastard wrote:
The prevailing PC thought process is that just because a crime is committed upon a person of a protected class, it is by definition a 'hate crime'.  So if a person were to mug someone that is a member of one of many protected classes, they get more charges because it is automatically a hate crime. 

This is absolutely false.

Committing a crime on a member of a protected class is not automatically a hate crime.

Committing a crime on someone because they are a member (or perceived member) of a protected class is a hate crime.

Don't confuse the two.

The law still fails.

  1) There should be NO groups treated differently by being deemed protected.

  2) You are still ASSuming you know the reason the person committing a crime did so (except in the case that the individual expressly states that this is the reason).  Even in this case, any crime against ANYONE based on what 'group' of society they are a member of should be treated equally.  No group should get special or different treatment.

What do you know??? You don't like beer, olives, or cheese.  How can anyone not like all three of these glorious foods?  It makes your opinion on other subjects irrelevant.

I love Greek food. One of my favorite cuisines. Could seriously use a nice trip to Ikarus in Greek Town which is in Baltimore. That's my favorite place. Have yet to find any other Greek restaurant that comes close, not that I've tried them all.

azaghal1981 wrote:
Guns do, in fact, kill people.

100% INNACURATE.

I have NEVER seen nor heard of any inanimate object killing anyone or anything.  PEOPLE kill people.  Your inane statement that they do is proof positive that none of what you post anywhere is to be given an iota of credibility.  Then again, it is always the liberal attitude to NEVER take responsibility for one's own actions and try to find someone or something else to blame for everything up to and including your total failure in life thus leading to your concept that other people who made better choices in life should be forced to pay your way.

atomicfront wrote:

RatBastard wrote:

vansmack wrote:

RatBastard wrote:
The prevailing PC thought process is that just because a crime is committed upon a person of a protected class, it is by definition a 'hate crime'.  So if a person were to mug someone that is a member of one of many protected classes, they get more charges because it is automatically a hate crime. 

This is absolutely false.

Committing a crime on a member of a protected class is not automatically a hate crime.

Committing a crime on someone because they are a member (or perceived member) of a protected class is a hate crime.

Don't confuse the two.

The law still fails.

  1) There should be NO groups treated differently by being deemed protected.

  2) You are still ASSuming you know the reason the person committing a crime did so (except in the case that the individual expressly states that this is the reason).  Even in this case, any crime against ANYONE based on what 'group' of society they are a member of should be treated equally.  No group should get special or different treatment.

What do you know??? You don't like beer, olives, or cheese.  How can anyone not like all three of these glorious foods?  It makes your opinion on other subjects irrelevant.

Oh I LOVE alcohol, unfortunately it does not love me.  Just because I do not drink (any more) does not mean I don't like it.

RatBastard wrote:
The law still fails.

  1) There should be NO groups treated differently by being deemed protected.

  2) You are still ASSuming you know the reason the person committing a crime did so (except in the case that the individual expressly states that this is the reason).  Even in this case, any crime against ANYONE based on what 'group' of society they are a member of should be treated equally.  No group should get special or different treatment.

I'm not assuming anything - I'm pointing out that you did not accurately describe the current state of the law.

Nor was I arguing whether or not the law was correct in principle either - just simply stating fact.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/md-politics/md-senate-votes-to-decriminalize-possession-of-small-amounts-of-marijuana/2013/03/19/e320f4da-90a3-11e2-9abd-e4c5c9dc5e90_story.html

:o :o :o

where's your random thought to go with that article . . . or was  :o  your random thought?

is that a random thought, you silly billy?

vansmack wrote:

RatBastard wrote:
The law still fails.

  1) There should be NO groups treated differently by being deemed protected.

  2) You are still ASSuming you know the reason the person committing a crime did so (except in the case that the individual expressly states that this is the reason).  Even in this case, any crime against ANYONE based on what 'group' of society they are a member of should be treated equally.  No group should get special or different treatment.

I'm not assuming anything - I'm pointing out that you did not accurately describe the current state of the law.

Nor was I arguing whether or not the law was correct in principle either - just simply stating fact.

The 'you' was not a literal you.  Rephrase that to 'the law is still assuming'.  I would have thought you were intelligent to see that without explanation.

Your initial reply is based on an invalid premise and goes to prove my initial point.  The charge is not based on the intent of the person who is being charged, it is based on what someone else THINKS they know the reason someone else acted.  It is 100% thought police at its finest.

RatBastard wrote:
The 'you' was not a literal you.  Rephrase that to 'the law is still assuming'.  I would have thought you were intelligent to see that without explanation.

I'm well aware that almost everything you write on here is figurative language and not literal, but don't blame your blatant misuse of the pronoun "you" instead of a more appropriate pronoun like 'one' or 'they' or even a noun like 'the law,' as you have suggested, on MY lack of comprehension of the English Language.

And again, there is no judgment on the current state of the law in my answer and thus no premise put forth. I was just letting you know that you are misrepresenting the current state of the law.  You may think it impossible, and that's fine, but that does not mean that the law does not exist, nor that because you don't believe it to be possible, that it doesn't apply to you.

walkonby wrote:
is that a random thought, you silly billy?

Nope. It's about Marijuana.

vansmack wrote:

RatBastard wrote:
The 'you' was not a literal you.  Rephrase that to 'the law is still assuming'.  I would have thought you were intelligent to see that without explanation.

I'm well aware that almost everything you write on here is figurative language and not literal, but don't blame your blatant misuse of the pronoun "you" instead of a more appropriate pronoun like 'one' or 'they' or even a noun like 'the law,' as you have suggested, on MY lack of comprehension of the English Language.

And again, there is no judgment on the current state of the law in my answer and thus no premise put forth. I was just letting you know that you are misrepresenting the current state of the law.  You may think it impossible, and that's fine, but that does not mean that the law does not exist, nor that because you don't believe it to be possible, that it doesn't apply to you.

It is not about comprehension of the language it is about recognizing the application of the language.

Your o/p stated two situations and said one was and another was not a hate crime.  The implied premise is that there is a difference between the two situations and that (in the case of the second) that there is a way to determine the reason a person commits a given act.  You simply made statements that specifically stated that the reason someone commits a given act determines if it is a hate crime.  I do understand that you have made no judgement on the merit of this absurd laws BTW.

When you boil it all down though, we are more or less saying the same thing.  These law exists that treats some groups of society differently.  IMHO this is an extremely bad thing for our government/laws to do.  Why is it any worse to beat the crap out of a (pick whatever protected group you want) person than it is to (lets say) do the same to a tall person, someone with green eyes, or anything else?  When you start making lists of protected people, it by default states that the people not in those groups are not afforded the same protection and for lack of better term are fair game and on their own.  It is just utter silliness that we have laws that not only selectively protect groups (who BTW say they are fighting to be treated equally, irony there big time) but also assume that it is even possible to determine the thought process and reasoning of the person behind the act.

Michelle Shocked's anti-gay rant   WTF?