pecanpie said:hate crime is redundant. a crime is a crime.Fallacies.

One person steals a loaf of bread because he's poor and starving.

Another person steals a loaf of bread because he hates the owner of the bakery.

The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.
Anatole France

formattc said:larrymoencurly said:pecanpie said:hate crime is redundant. a crime is a crime.Fallacies.

One person steals a loaf of bread because he's poor and starving.

Another person steals a loaf of bread because he hates the owner of the bakery.

So, how is the victim harmed more in the second case?
The crime is that the victim lost a loaf of bread, why should what the thief was thinking at the time garner them more punishment?Let's apply your logic to two Jewish men: John's front door is defaced with the word "love" while Peter's is defaced with a swastika. Is Peter, and his wife and children, "hurt" more than John and John's?

Hate is a thought and like it or not, it's an American's right to hate if they want to, as long as they don't act on it.

Example:
A guy comes up to me and punches me in the face and says "fark you, you Irish/Native-American, I hate Irish/Native-Americans"! He IS guilty of assault but NOT a hate crime because IMO, it's his right to hate Irish/Native-Americans if he wants to, as long as he doesn't punch them in the face.

formattc said:Hate is a thought and like it or not, it's an American's right to hate if they want to, as long as they don't act on it.

I agree with this.

katx said:formattc said:Hate is a thought and like it or not, it's an American's right to hate if they want to, as long as they don't act on it.

Example:
A guy comes up to me and punches me in the face and says "fark you, you Irish/Native-American, I hate Irish/Native-Americans"! He IS guilty of assault but NOT a hate crime because IMO, it's his right to hate Irish/Native-Americans if he wants to, as long as he doesn't punch them in the face. Am I correct to then conclude that you would/should be against the Civil Right Act and similar laws that forbid discrimination based on race, religion, etc? Are others who have spoken against "punishing hate" in this thread also against such civil rights measures?

No you are incorrect to conclude that.

curvesahead said:katx said:formattc said:Hate is a thought and like it or not, it's an American's right to hate if they want to, as long as they don't act on it.

Example:
A guy comes up to me and punches me in the face and says "fark you, you Irish/Native-American, I hate Irish/Native-Americans"! He IS guilty of assault but NOT a hate crime because IMO, it's his right to hate Irish/Native-Americans if he wants to, as long as he doesn't punch them in the face. Am I correct to then conclude that you would/should be against the Civil Right Act and similar laws that forbid discrimination based on race, religion, etc? Are others who have spoken against "punishing hate" in this thread also against such civil rights measures?

No you are incorrect to conclude that.

Absolutely and no, I'm not a racist! I don't believe in treating anyone ANY different based on what they look like, who they worship, etc. If someone is more qualified for a particular job than I am then it's completely understandable why they'd get the job over me, regarless of any other factors. What bothers me is when it goes past equal treatment into the territory of special treatment. The seemingly pervasive notion that caucasians can't be discriminated against sends me to the moon!

kamalktk said:"What do you think?"

I try not to think. Buddhist nirvana is easier to reach that way.

Not true.

katx said:Please explain this to me. You say hate+defacing should be treated like defacing because in America we are allowed to hate. So why isn't hate and discrimination treated the same as discrimination (which is not even illegal by itself).

In my opinion there is a gaping hole (nay, holes) in the argument against hate crimes.

So I can't be against hate crime legislation without being a racist? Quite the contrary, I think hate crime legislation encourages racism because it makes distinctions by race.

I'll say it again, it's about trying to ban thoughts, not behavior.
I do think that antidicrimination laws are abused, however. In a minority of cases, they're used to garner special treatment where none was deserved.

Example:

When I worked at HRB I was in charge of hiring for my department after the tax season was over. We got budgeted for a couple of permanent (non seasonal) positions and were told to hire from the best of the seasonal staff. Now keep in mind, a mantra that was constantly repeated during hiring of seasonals was that "you should have no expectation of permanent employment with H&R Block" and they even signed a form to that effect. Well, I did my evaluations and made my decision, and both people accepted the permanent positions. Well, someone else got a lawyer to take their case and sued for discrimination! The funny part: The people I hired were an Asian man and a Hispanic woman!