Dakryn's Batshit Theory of the Week

[Dak]

Of course it's not a hate crime, only white males are capable of hate.

 

[Krigloch the Furious]

Exactly

 

[skeptik]

Cosby Kids Denied Entry to Community Pool

 

[The Ozzman]

I lol'd

 

[Dak]

Medvedev presents sample world currency coin at G8

Conspiracy theorists are always so out there.

 

[The Ozzman]

Is there a picture of the coin somewhere?

 

[skeptik]

What would be so horrible, in principle, about a world currency?

 

[Dak]

Because by it's very nature would require some sort of all powerful overseeing organization, which would instantly be more powerful than any one country, IE a sort of backdoor one world government. 0 balance of power.

 

[Ink_Wirey]

@Vihris: If you want more "blogosphere" chatter: We are currently entering a window from like, now until October for potentially each or some of these events:

Obama Assasination
A huge terrorist attack somewhere
Collapse of the US Dollar and/or the British Pound
A bank holiday
Martial Law
Swine Flu Redux

Interesting

I eagerly await these events, although I must admit the conspiracy that a bank holiday may or may not occur in the next few months has some potentiality to it.

 

[Pessimism]

Because by it's very nature would require some sort of all powerful overseeing organization, which would instantly be more powerful than any one country, IE a sort of backdoor one world government. 0 balance of power.

Just think of what would need to be done to equalize the value of money over all the nations. Even if you start out with a new currency as a set amount, it must be associated with an already established currency/standard so it doesn't degrade in value the world over due to the different economic states of every nation.

It can probably be worked out in some form on paper, but the regulation to keep that currency elevated above others, or to even give it stronger grounding than currently held world reserve standards (dollar, euro), or make it a sort of commodity currency. If they go with a fiat type of currency, the only thing that would make it survive would be to have it put into circulation.

 

[Dak]

Biden displays economic insanity

"People, when I say that, look at me and say, 'What are you talking about, Joe? You're telling me we have to go spend money to keep from going bankrupt?" he said. "The answer is yes."

 

[genocide roach]

Senate votes to expand federal hate crimes law
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090717/ap_on_go_co/us_hate_crimes

i think its pretty ridiculous that theyre making laws against what people think. and most violent crimes are hate crimes, whether they attack a "minority" or not.

discuss...
~gR~

 

[genocide roach]

Obama has tough-love message for African-Americans
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090717/pl_nm/us_obama

finally someone other than bill cosby is talking about this
~gR~

 

[cookiecutter]

I am uncomfortable with laws against hate crimes because it is similar to hate speech which I think should be allowed completely. However it is understandable to punish someone more for a hate crime because it is less transient motive than the usual ones.

GR you said that most crimes are hate crimes, but I think you are missing the point. I may murder a white man because I hate him but that is only one target. If I murder a black man because I hate black people then that is a motive that will remain after I commit the crime.

This example makes me seem very murderous but I hope it gets the point across.

 

[Pessimism]

 

[The Ozzman]

 

[skeptik]

We totally already had this discussion a month ago.

How "hate" killings get lambasted like they are somehow different from any other type of murder. Murder is murder.

So you think crimes of passions and crimes based purely upon the colour of your skin are equal in their severity?

Well 'severity' leaves it a bit open. If someone walks in on their hot wife and someone of an inferior race in bed, and blows them away with the old shotgun, is it worse than if the same thing happened but the guy with a shotgun was a member of antifa and their black girlfriend was having an affair with krig?

There's a fairly obvious difference between killing somebody to take his money and killing somebody because he's gay or black or transgender.

christ dakryn could you really not know that please tell me you knew that

Or killing a child. Child murder, racial murder, mentally challenged murder=heroin dealer killing another heroin dealer? I think not.

Yeah, but don't you think the punishment should basically be the same? I mean, regardless of one's motives, the result is the same; a most likely innocent person has been killed. It's not a crime to harbor personal beliefs against someone because they're gay, black, etc. (although I'm not saying it's right); therefore, I'm not sure that whether a person kills someone because they don't like their ethnicity or because they just wanted their money really matters.

So you think crimes of passions and crimes based purely upon the colour of your skin are equal in their severity?

Well 'severity' leaves it a bit open. If someone walks in on their hot wife and someone of an inferior race in bed, and blows them away with the old shotgun, is it worse than if the same thing happened but the guy with a shotgun was a member of antifa and their black girlfriend was having an affair with krig?

Or killing a child. Child murder, racial murder, mentally challenged murder=heroin dealer killing another heroin dealer? I think not.

Yeah, but don't you think the punishment should basically be the same? I mean, regardless of one's motives, the result is the same; a most likely innocent person has been killed. It's not a crime to harbor personal beliefs against someone because they're gay, black, etc. (although I'm not saying it's right); therefore, I'm not sure that whether a person kills someone because they don't like their ethnicity or because they just wanted their money really matters.

I don't believe in prison anyway but that turns into a huge debate that isn't for this thread.



Self defense and murder are two totally different things. No one is faulting the other guard who shot mr old guy.

But if you killed in self-defense you wouldn't get punished anyway.

EDIT: @ DEVA

But the result is still the same. A person is dead.

But that's not what you said.

If you're robbing somebody for money, then you've accomplished your goal once you get the money, unless you either need more money or have a money fetish. Committing a crime out of hatred, however, is another matter, since hatred is an unlimited resource. As long as there are black people, the person that I described is liable to continue to commit crimes of prejudice. Robberies are generally committed with the express purpose of acquiring 'needed' material goods and are not motivated by some intangible passion of ideology.

Oh, well I'm talking about how it can matter the reason one person killed another.

If I gun you down because I don't like your family lineage or because I want your wallet, the result is the same an innocent person was killed.

If I miss and you pull your own gun out and shoot and kill me, the result is different. An attempted murderer was killed.

In other words, the motivation for the action is important.

See, I believe that a thief is just as likely to repeat the offense as someone who did so out of personal beliefs. If a person has resorted to robbery as a means to survive, then it's likely that he or she will attempt it again. Either way, it's a respect for human life that's being ignored. I agree that motives can help in the investigation of a crime and the ensuing prosecution; but I don't think that the punishment for a person who killed someone and then robbed them should be any less than that of a person who dragged someone of a different ethnicity behind his/her car and then killed them.



Well, this is where investigations comes in handy.

Hyopthetically:
Someone pleads self defense; he's a wealthy, successful businessman with no previous record of criminal activity. What can we deduce? Most likely, he's telling the truth.

Now, you have another man who pleads self defense; he's from a poor neighborhood, has just been fired (or laid off, quit, whatever), and has a history of criminal activity. Chances are, he wasn't acting in self defense.

Furthermore, the chances that we're dealing with a situation in which there's a Patrick Bateman wandering around killing homeless people is slim, so I think it's justifiable to say that the investigation will arrive at the correct conclusion.

I'm uncomfortable with hate crime laws just because of its relation to free speech. I do agree though that motive should be considered when determining a sentence.

You're missing the point. If a mugger is attacking people for their wallets, he does so only as long as he needs money; he can be rehabilitated, because if he has a steady income he won't need to steal and therefor won't. There's no rehabilitating the Klansman short of somehow changing his mind, which I don't think is likely. So motivation matters because it affects whether future crimes can be prevented. In a murder case it's not particularly relevant because if convicted the killer will go to jail for life or be executed.


Or because liberals like free speech...

I'm not missing the point; I've already said, I disagree.

First of all, the mugger in this discussion is not simply "attacking" people for their wallets. We have specifically stated earlier in the thread that, in our hypothetical situation, the mugger "killed" the person he robbed. That automatically elevates the crime from robbery to intentional murder.

Second of all, a mugger who is "killing" people and taking their wallets is not more likely to be rehabilitated than a person who is killing people based on personal biases. I highly doubt that a mugger is going to rob a few people (and kill them, mind you) and then think "Gee, I have enough money to last me a while, I think I'll get a job now." Someone who actually thinks like that wouldn't kill someone in the first place. Furthermore, if we agree that this murderer/thief does deserve a chance at rehabilitation, I feel that a racist killer does as well.

Finally, we're arguing over those who murder someone should be punished differently, purely because of the reason they committed the crime. If a person kills someone due to racist beliefs, it is no worse than killing someone because he or she wanted their money; the motive is different, but the crime is still premeditated and intentional. In my opinion, it's stupid to differentiate when dealing out punishment.

I agree that motive is paramount in determining guilt, but not in assigning the degree of discipline.

Actually, I don't recall ever saying in my example that the mugger killed his victim.

You said that "a person [who] kills someone due to racist beliefs...is no worse than killing someone because he or she wanted their money." This is obviously where we disagree. A person who robs another person is in all likelihood resorting to an action, perhaps through necessity. This is not a person that has a desire to commit a crime, but rather has decided that this is his or her easiest solution outside of moral ramifications. A person who commits a crime out of prejudice is doing so out of a desire. Now, I think we can both agree that acting out of a desire to do something is more compelling than resorting to an action. I would imagine that those who rob others out of a mere desire to do so are in a considerable minority, whereas those who attack others due to intolerant biases against certain social identifying classes are most likely doing it because they genuinely want to do it and feel no compulsion that that 'have' to do it, like a father stealing medicine for his sick child or something.

As to your last sentence, I don't think that I disagree with you, and I don't think that I implied that I do. I do not think that a hate crime should necessarily receive a longer sentence, but I do find that it is far more likely to be deserved. I passionately object to the arbitrary nature of determining length of prison sentences to begin with, however, as I'd hinted earlier. I believe that every individual case should be handled entirely individually and should be constantly reevaluated. In fact I think that the definite prison term should be done away with entirely. I don't think that people should be released from prison unless they don't appear to be likely to commit further crimes.

I thought we were arguing about the same crime, but the motives behind the crime differed. Maybe I misread earlier...



Yeah, you've nailed our disagreement. I just feel that it doesn't matter whether or not a person wants to kill another human being; the fact that they're willing to take that final step proves that there's some kind of imbalance there. Furthermore, it's for a reason that, in my personal opinion, cannot be justified (in either case). Even if a person kills and robs someone for money to feed his or her family, that person is infringing upon the life of another human being, and I don't believe that you can decrease the sentence simply because he or she may not have wanted to kill that person.

 

[Einherjar86]

EPIC.

 

[Dak]

Obama has tough-love message for African-Americans
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090717/pl_nm/us_obama

finally someone other than bill cosby is talking about this
~gR~

Probably the first speech I have read/heard by Obama I have remotely agreed with.

@Dodens/Ein: PATENTLY EPIC!

In news:

Hillary says CFR tells the administration how to conduct business in a speech to the CFR:

Transcript: Hillary CFR Speech July 15th

Thank you very much, Richard, and I am delighted to be here in these new headquarters. I have been often to, I guess, the mother ship in New York City, but it’s good to have an outpost of the Council right here down the street from the State Department. We get a lot of advice from the Council, so this will mean I won’t have as far to go to be told what we should be doing and how we should think about the future.

Btw this is from state.gov, not a "alternate news media" site.

 

[Pessimism]

Quoting because I want more love for this picture.