some of the white male privilege here sure is making me giggle.

before I go back to working, I just wanted to say that I agree with you in principal, and wish that there could be just one set of laws.

it makes logical sense.

people just have a nasty way of breaking logical solutions. without some way to fill the gaps, heathens like our dear friend Hitler's 'lil Helper would be free to run amok as they will.

I also want to say that we aren't talking about thought control.

it's more about accountability for putting thought-to-action.



ok, now really. 2nd pot of coffee is done and I better just stop talking.

Oh believe me we are not light years ahead of you, we have our fair share of politically correct bullshit laws

If you assault someone for being Korean its a crime, simply because assault is a crime

The motivation, on the other hand, is racist not the act, so in my humble opinion keep the crime the same for all people and deal with the motive on sentencing

God knows, society is perfectly capable of dividing itself without governments passing laws to divide us even further

Nice to see we agree on violence being abhorrent, I deal with it all the time in the course of work and it still sickens me

White male privilege?

It's purely technical. Legalese speak, more red tape to cut through before anyone can be punished for committing crimes, that, somehow, I believe, George Bush, deep down inside, actually would encourage if he could. It's to seperate and clearly, in the legal sense, define what crime has been committed, and so that the appropriate justice can be meted out. It's the symptom of the compartmentalizing mind, the burning desire to stick a label on everything. Also, if I met that Senator Craig in person, I'd kick the stuffing out of him...

yes. unbeknownst to you, apparently, straight white males across the world have the god given privilege to do anything they want without worrying about the repercussions, often without ever knowing it.

There could be. It would be pretty simple too; just make every crime, great or small, punishable by death.

[quote=val-holla-ing]yes. unbeknownst to you, apparently, straight white males across the world have the god given privilege to do anything they want without worrying about the repercussions, often without ever knowing it.[/quote

And I said that where?

Nice to see the card coming out

you implied it.

what about the "fuck you" card? that's the only one i'm well versed in bringing out.

i have always been against the very idea of a "HATE CRIME" law.
a crime is a crime, regardless of motivation. To punish people for whatever (albeit sick and twisted) belief caused them to commit a crime, such as assult, murder, rape, etc., is to punish THOUGHT.
a person who burns a cross on someone's l;awn can eb charged with trespassing, reckless endangerment, etc, ACTUAL CRIMES, but "hate crime laws" will try to charge this person with "hating blacks", which is his or her right to do no matter how asinine or ridiculous it may be.

the thought police are here people.

the very idea of "hate crimes" implies that a crime is eomehow worse because of one's feelings. how is a crime deemed LESS reprehensible because the crimina was not a racist, or a mysoginist, or a gay-basher, etc? How does that make a victim feel?

think about it.

The very idea of a hate crime law insinuates that some people are deserving of white male protection.

only because of white male persecution, maybe.

I implied nothing

As usual I stated that all people should be treated the same, in this context in law

Try learning to read what people actually type not what you want them to say

That card is showing again

And it aint the "fuck you" one

it's no card, it's reality. i'm sorry if you can't see that, but it really is.

Your version of reality maybe

Amazes me how you can stereotype the whole of the white male section of the population so easily

it's not a stereotype and it's not my personal version of reality. if that were the case, the country wouldn't be on the verge of being polarized over the issue of the first black or female president.

the white male is percieved as the bread and butter of most of the entire planet. that alone, gives them an advantage over most any other group of people. how can you not see that? i'm not saying there's anything wrong with being who you are, but just know that your position of advantage makes it so much easier to ignore anyone in a position less than yours.

and money does not hurt

The bread and butter of this planet are the chinese and the indians, certainly not the white europeans you seem to think

Its their economies that are fuelling the world economy

I dont know what its like to live in the USA, nor would it be right for me to take one persons version fo lfie there as representative

What I can tell you is this, life here is a hell of a lot different from what you allude to, nor are white people in this country at an advantage, quite the opposite

Its not paradise or perfect in the UK but you can work bloody hard and earn a good living regardless of race creed or colour

Probably why 1 in 5 of people who migrate to and within europe come here

Now, where did I put my advantage.........

for the record, I'm FUNK and I'm PROUD.

I need to work on my oppression skillz.
I barely exploited anyone today.
I'm an embarrassment to my race.

I am hispanic AND white as hell.

I am no downpressor man.

hey! check out those squirrels!

I'm polynesian.

You disgust me.


(ha ha?)

hey remember that one time i woke you up to bury the neighbor's electrocuted squirrel at 8 a.m. on a sunday morning?!?!

that WAS awesome.

i think you're missing what i'm trying to say.

Val-Holla-ing is correct

Sometime after WWII the leaders of the western world decidded who wold control what sphere of influence in the world.

The americans were "assigned" central and south america, the Japanese were to control the pacific rim and asian world. The Eurpoeans would control africa and the subcontinent. This was all very acrefully strategized and planned out and followed. When the british failed in their "control" of the middle east the americans took over that sphere by controlling israel and massive ties monetarily to the saudis.

in the world we live in today, yes, India and china have massive economies, but they are the bottom of the cghain. the top of the chain is still very much controlled by RICH WHITE MEN from america and europe.

most of the USA involvements in the middle east and in south america have been done to keep these nations from developing powerful economies. coups were staged in panama argentina chile etc with the aid and support of americans to devalue their currency.

the world, including most white people also, are at the mercy of a few thousand RICH WHITE MEN

if you choose to deny this then you are deluded or willfully ignorant.

watch it, man. you're pulling the card.

OK where do Mulder and Scully fit into that?

What about Love Crimes, huh? Sometimes a lesser sentence may apply. If I see a morbidly obese person about to consume a Big Mac and I bludgeon them, perhaps it's my way of saying "I love you brother, I don't want you to die or put undue strain on the healthcare system".

I've always thought of Big Macs as a love crime...

read your chomsky. he is meticulate about documenting all his source material

I've read Noam Chomsky and can't seem to recall him putting forward that theory anywhere

He didn't explain the man on the grassy knoll either.........

Now that you mention the grassy knoll I'm wondering...Is the Zapruder Film bigger than Gone With The Wind yet? I know I've seen it at least a dozen times myself.

it is horrible that someone would oppose sexual preferance to be in the hate crime law.
and i do belive that there should be hate crime laws. not necesserilly worse punishment but definatly for the law to differentiate between crimes.
lets say there is a shopowner that owes the mob money and they burn down his shop.
and lets say that there is a shop keeper that is jewish and his shop is burnt down by neo nazis, simply for his being jewish.

so what you have is the same outcome, a burnt-down shop, and both arsonists should be arrested for the crime. but there must be awareness that one of the crimes was done because of bigotry.

its just like if a public place was blown up by either some crazy disgruntled worker or, if it was blown up by (for the sake of being current) an islamic terrorist.

There is no difference except the motive, the crimes are exactly the same, deal with the motives on sentencing

In both examples you end up with a burnt out shop and blown up people!

It's just circular logic in an attempt to make some people feel better about our justice system. Discriminate against a certain group because they discriminated against a certain group. Just another sad commentary on a nation that's on life support and a feeding tube.