SF church vandalized over Prop 8

It's NOT a hate crime! It's, er, ACTIVISM! Right, folks?

Still, I repeat my opposition to the entire "hate crime" law thing as being utterly superflous. To be sure, people's motives matter in crimes. But they matter when it comes to establishing intent -- did A mean to hurt B.

The problem with hate crime laws is that they give disproportionate punishment to those who are legally equally guilty, just because the "bad" criminals meant to hurt others for "bad" motives -- hating their skin color -- as opposed to those "good" criminals, who merely meant to hurt others for such noble reasons as, say, wanting their wallet.

A defense against hate crimes, apparently, should go like this: "You honor, I only tortured him, chopped his head off, toasted his body in the oven, gave the meat to my dogs, and raped his wife; but as this video of the crime I took myself proves, I never said the N-word in anger to him as I did it, so..."
 
Last edited:
A defense against hate crimes, apparently, should go like this: "You honor, I only tortured him, chopped his head off, toasted his body in the oven, gave the meat to my dogs, and raped his wife; but as this video of the crime I took myself proves, I never said the N-word in anger to him as I did it, so..."
Click to expand...
Most funny thing I've read in a long time:D. Nominated for pith.
 
Skeptic said:
It's NOT a hate crime! It's, er, ACTIVISM! Right, folks?

Still, I repeat my opposition to the entire "hate crime" law thing as being utterly superflous. To be sure, people's motives matter in crimes. But they matter when it comes to establishing intent -- did A mean to hurt B.

The problem with hate crime laws is that they give disproportionate punishment to those who are legally equally guilty, just because the "bad" criminals meant to hurt others for "bad" motives -- hating their skin color -- as opposed to those "good" criminals, who merely meant to hurt others for such noble reasons as, say, wanting their wallet.

A defense against hate crimes, apparently, should go like this: "You honor, I only tortured him, chopped his head off, toasted his body in the oven, gave the meat to my dogs, and raped his wife; but as this video of the crime I took myself proves, I never said the N-word in anger to him as I did it, so..."
Click to expand...

+1.

How exactly does labeling something a "hate crime" not create a category of crimethink, if one receives a higher punishment for holding/expressing "unacceptable" opinions?
 
We have gone down a strange road when we view someone beating up someone at random just because they're psychotic as being less worse than beating someone up because of their ethnicity/religion/sexual orientation.
 
Is anyone going to paint a swastika on President Obama for stating that he believes marriage should be the union between a man and a woman?
 
Let me say for the record that I oppose painting swastikas on the President of the United States, no matter how many times I didn't vote for him.
 
BPSCG said:
Let me say for the record that I oppose painting swastikas on the President of the United States, no matter how many times I didn't vote for him.
Click to expand...
What if he likes old Hindu good luck symbols face painted on in black, red, and green? ;) Who are you to deny him a little fun? :cool:

a quick wiki scan said:
Some of the oldest swastikas to be discovered were found at Lothal and Harappa, on Indus Valley seals.
Click to expand...
If the president elect wishes to reach out multiculturally to our friends across the various ponds, is that not good for America?

DR
 
Darth Rotor said:
You (and we) can't. The Pope or a bishop can.

Not sure how Mormons undo a marriage, but I am pretty sure you have no authority over it.

DR
Click to expand...

I can answer the Mormon part, being an active Mormon myself.

There are two components here: the standard civil legalities, and the ecclesiastical (only applicable for a couple who have been married or later sealed in the Temple). The latter involves the Presidency of the Church.

I'm told that a lot of civilly divorced LDS couples don't bother with the cancellation of sealings until one party is ready to remarry.
 
BPSCG said:
Let me say for the record that I oppose painting swastikas on the President of the United States, no matter how many times I didn't vote for him.
Click to expand...

Bravo, sir. The whiny, narcissistic, radical gay activists in the Castro have much to learn from your example. One does not have to throw a temper tantrum like a spoiled three year old just because a free and fair popular vote didn't go your way.
 
Darth Rotor said:
You (and we) can't. The Pope or a bishop can.

Not sure how Mormons undo a marriage, but I am pretty sure you have no authority over it.

DR
Click to expand...

Then what do you call the legal removal of the marriage with out any act of divorce?

And aren't there also legal anulments? I remember hearing about that with Dennis Rodmans marriage.
 
Last edited:
H3LL said:
Wow! Paint!

How could they!!!

What is the world coming to?

Tut!
Click to expand...


So vandalizing other's people property is OK?

I am pretty disgusted that this kind of action is finding support among alleged "rational thinkers".
 
ravdin said:
Bravo, sir. The whiny, narcissistic, radical gay activists in the Castro have much to learn from your example. One does not have to throw a temper tantrum like a spoiled three year old just because a free and fair popular vote didn't go your way.
Click to expand...

And this actually hurts the Gay Rights cause, by making it look like they are hypocrites.
Frankly, I opposed prop 8 but the behavior of both sides is becoming such as to make understandable if someone looking at the situation goes away with the feeling "Both sides are nuts".
 
Skeptic said:
It's NOT a hate crime! It's, er, ACTIVISM! Right, folks?

Still, I repeat my opposition to the entire "hate crime" law thing as being utterly superflous. To be sure, people's motives matter in crimes. But they matter when it comes to establishing intent -- did A mean to hurt B.

The problem with hate crime laws is that they give disproportionate punishment to those who are legally equally guilty, just because the "bad" criminals meant to hurt others for "bad" motives -- hating their skin color -- as opposed to those "good" criminals, who merely meant to hurt others for such noble reasons as, say, wanting their wallet.

A defense against hate crimes, apparently, should go like this: "You honor, I only tortured him, chopped his head off, toasted his body in the oven, gave the meat to my dogs, and raped his wife; but as this video of the crime I took myself proves, I never said the N-word in anger to him as I did it, so..."
Click to expand...

I see you are building up a straw army there.
 
dudalb said:
Frankly, I opposed prop 8 but the behavior of both sides is becoming such as to make understandable if someone looking at the situation goes away with the feeling "Both sides are nuts".
Click to expand...
I opposed prop 8, too (or would have, had I lived in California), but I don't understand how someone can have a "plague on both your houses" mentality about this. Have pro-prop 8 people been going around vandalizing gay bathhouses or something?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom