Hate Crimes

[Nick_A]

Perhaps some of the liberal minds here can explain to me this ultimate expression of selective morality known as hate crimes. Not even two glasses of merlot can allow me to see this as anything other than sheer politically correct stupidity. A hate crime is defined as::

A legal term that describes criminal acts motivated by prejudice. The term ethnoviolence is a broader term that describes acts of intimidation ...
www.publiceye.org/glossary/glossary_big.html

American Renaissance News: Effigy of Sarah Palin Hanging by a Noose Creates Uproar in West Hollywood

Whitmore said that potential hate crimes are evaluated on a case-by-case basis. If the same display had been made of a Barack Obama-like doll, for example, authorities would have to evaluate it independently, Whitmore said.

Hanging a black man could be considered a hate crime but hanging a white woman may not. What do they think it is, a love crime?

Some PC fool will define hate crimes by how THEY evaluate each incident.

Will some of the liberals here please explain this lunacy?

 

[Paladin]

Not sure I understand your intent Nick. Did you want someone to explain in a way that would make you ponder or just something to reinforce your opinion?

 

[Nick_A]

Not sure I understand your intent Nick. Did you want someone to explain in a way that would make you ponder or just something to reinforce your opinion?

My opinion is that it is the height of naivty and a damaging attempt at social engineering. Yet I know there are those that justify defining certain crimes as hate crimes and using the term as a means for manipulating equality under the law. I'm asking why liberals support denying equality under the law through the use of this conception of hate crimes.

How can anyone not having downed the whole bottle of merlot call hanging a dummy of Obama a hate crime and hanging a dummy of Sarah Palin as "art" in a halloween exhibit?

 

[Paladin]

Well, here's the thing. I do understand the concept behind "hate crimes" but expressing violence toward any one is equally wrong no matter what it is called. Sure, liberals in their attempt at equanimity do some silly things but you have to look carefully to see what their heartfelt intent is, then perhaps you can understand without necessarily supporting that idea. The mark of an educated mind is to entertain a thought without accepting it.
Without that ability I would certainly never get along with most conservatives.

 

[Nick_A]

Well, here's the thing. I do understand the concept behind "hate crimes" but expressing violence toward any one is equally wrong no matter what it is called. Sure, liberals in their attempt at equanimity do some silly things but you have to look carefully to see what their heartfelt intent is, then perhaps you can understand without necessarily supporting that idea. The mark of an educated mind is to entertain a thought without accepting it.
Without that ability I would certainly never get along with most conservatives.

I understand the dangers of "heartfelt intents." Man has been warned about them from the beginning but to no avail. "The road to hell" is a famous expression of this warning.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions: Information from Answers.com

Earlier forms of the proverb omit the first three words. Cf. [St. Francis de sales, Letter lxxiv.] le proverbe tiré de notre saint Bernard, ‘L'enfer est plein de bonnes volontés ou désirs’, the proverb taken from our St. Bernard, ‘Hell is full of good intentions or desires.’

Hell is full of good desires.
[1574 E. Hellowes tr. Guevara's Epistles 205]
​

It is a saying among Divines, that Hell is full of good Intentions, and Meanings.
[1654 R. Whitlock Observations on Manners of English 203]
​

It is a true saying,‘Hell is paved with good intentions’.
[1736 Wesley Journal 10 July (1910) I. i. 246]
​

I shall have nothing to hand in, except intentions,—what they say the road to the wrong place is paved with.
[1847 J. A. Froude Shadows of Clouds ix.]
​

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
[1855 H. G. Bohn Hand-Book of Proverbs 514]

​

It seems to me that liberalism lacks the critical thinking necessary to understand the truth of the proverb. It cannot balance the benefits with the detriments of these "heartfelt intentions." I'm asking how this lack is so easily justified when history is replete with evidence as to the truth of it. It really is a deep psychological question impossible for those with an agenda to discuss with the necessary objectivity. So we never learn.

 

[Paladin]

Surely you see that you could substitute "Humans" for "Liberalism" in that last paragraph and it would work equally well, otherwise you slip into the fallacy of "my views are always right while theirs are always wrong"

 

[Nick_A]

Surely you see that you could substitute "Humans" for "Liberalism" in that last paragraph and it would work equally well, otherwise you slip into the fallacy of "my views are always right while theirs are always wrong"

By conservatism I mean conserving the importance of ancient truths revealed in the depths of great ideas By liberalism I mean that which forgets these truths and instead relies on heartfelt intentions. This is why Judas is your classic liberal.

Jacob needleman in his book "The American Soul" describes this well.

Our world, so we see and hear on all sides, is drowning in materialism, commercialism, consumerism. But the problem is not really there. What we ordinarily speak of as materialism is a result, not a cause. The root of materialism is a poverty of ideas about the inner and outer world. Less and less does our contemporary culture have, or even seek, commerce with great ideas, and it is the lack that is weakening the human spirit. This is the essence of materialism. Materialism is a disease of the mind starved for ideas.

Throughout history ideas of a certain kind have been disseminated into the life of humanity in order to help human beings understand and feel the possibility of the deep inner change that would enable them to serve the purpose for which they were created, namely, to act in the world as conscious,individual instruments of God, and the ultimate principle of reality and value. Ideas of this kind are formulated in order to have a specific range of action on the human psych: to touch the heart as well as the intellect; to shock us into questioning our present understanding; to point us to the greatness around us in nature and the universe, and the potential greatness slumbering within ourselves; to open our eyes to the real needs of our neighbor; to confront us with our own profound ignorance and our criminal fears and egoism; to show us that we are not here for ourselves alone, but as necessary particles of divine love.

These are the contours of the ancient wisdom, considered as ideas embodied in religious and philosophical doctrines, works of sacred art,literature and music and, in a very fundamental way, an indication of practical methods by which a man or woman can work, as is said, to become what he or she really is. Without feeling the full range of such ideas, or sensing even a modest, but pure, trace of them, we are bound to turn for meaning.

Without making the efforts to ponder and feel the worth of such ideas we've turn for meaning towards both materialism and forms of heartfelt intentions including New Age imagination. This is self evident.

The ideas Prof. Needleman is referring to are living truths worth conserving for our psychological good. Liberalism to me is a reaction of ignorance or to corrupted conservatism that often leads to results equal to if not worse than those of corrupted efforts at conserving. The concept of "hate crimes" is just a typical example of misguided good intentions possible only when we've lost the meaning and value of these great ideas

 

[Paladin]

"...to shock us into questioning our present understanding; to point us to the greatness around us in nature and the universe, and the potential greatness slumbering within ourselves; to open our eyes to the real needs of our neighbor; to confront us with our own profound ignorance and our criminal fears and egoism; to show us that we are not here for ourselves alone, but as necessary particles of divine love."

I like this part the best, pity so very few can be said to practice it.

 

[Nick_A]

"...to shock us into questioning our present understanding; to point us to the greatness around us in nature and the universe, and the potential greatness slumbering within ourselves; to open our eyes to the real needs of our neighbor; to confront us with our own profound ignorance and our criminal fears and egoism; to show us that we are not here for ourselves alone, but as necessary particles of divine love."

I like this part the best, pity so very few can be said to practice it.

It is even more sad to me that reliance on good intentions and feel good political correctness doesn't even allow awareness of such ideas and our collective ignorance let alone practicing them.

 

[Netti-Netti]

By conservatism I mean conserving the importance of ancient truths revealed in the depths of great ideas

Are you referring to such great ideas as religious dogma, forced conversions, transfer of power via blood lines, Divine Right of Kings, feudal systems, and slavery?

By liberalism I mean that which forgets these truths and instead relies on heartfelt intentions.

Enlightenment philosophers were liberal thinkers whose ideas formed the basis for such innovations as the US Constitution. Do you see the US Constitution as touchy/feely stuff? Based on your spiel about the presidential citizenship requirement I got the impression you see the Constitution as representing some kind of Absolute Truth.


I'd disagree with you again if you were to say that libertarianism is a branch of conservatism. Based on its ideological roots, libertarianism can easily be recognized as a form of Enlightenment liberalism. Given the distinctively conservative policies of the last 8 years in the US, I'd expect that many libertarians are experiencing a serious identity crisis.

 

[Nick_A]

Are you referring to such great ideas as religious dogma, forced conversions, transfer of power via blood lines, Divine Right of Kings, feudal systems, and slavery?



Enlightenment philosophers were liberal thinkers whose ideas formed the basis for such innovations as the US Constitution. Do you see the US Constitution as touchy/feely stuff? Based on your spiel about the presidential citizenship requirement I got the impression you see the Constitution as representing some kind of Absolute Truth.


I'd disagree with you again if you were to say that libertarianism is a branch of conservatism. Based on its ideological roots, libertarianism can easily be recognized as a form of Enlightenment liberalism. Given the distinctively conservative policies of the last 8 years in the US, I'd expect that many libertarians are experiencing a serious identity crisis.

Netti

Are you referring to such great ideas as religious dogma, forced conversions, transfer of power via blood lines, Divine Right of Kings, feudal systems, and slavery?

No. I'm referring to what Prof. Needleman is describing.

Enlightenment philosophers were liberal thinkers whose ideas formed the basis for such innovations as the US Constitution. Do you see the US Constitution as touchy/feely stuff? Based on your spiel about the presidential citizenship requirement I got the impression you see the Constitution as representing some kind of Absolute Truth.

The enlightenment in respect to science for example was only the result of corrupted conservatism. There never was and still isn't an objective divide between science and religion. Yet psychological corruption on both sides creates one that objectively doesn't exist.

The constitution is a document that sustains the PROCESS by which oppositions normal for the cyclical flows of secular life can be reconciled without losing the freedom it was intended to support. It seeks to support a healthy goose rather then ingenious ways to suck golden eggs out of it and killing the goose at the same time.

Are you on of these that defend the concept of hate speech as a form of legal intimidation proper for politically correct selective morality?

 

[juantoo3]

Will some of the liberals here please explain this lunacy?

As a reactionary conservative I feel discriminated against by this comment.

 

[Paladin]

Exactly Juan, what is lunacy except a reaction to another's values in light of your own?
I could just as easily call it lunacy to think that I should pattern my behaviors and beliefs after the commonly held idea of a creator god.

 

[Nick_A]

As a reactionary conservative I feel discriminated against by this comment.

Hate crimes using selective morality as a form of legal intimidation is a liberal idea. If you want to reply from a reactionary conservative perspective, it can't make it any worse. I don't know what non-corrupt conservative principles you are reacting to that defend hate crimes as legal intimidation.

 

[Netti-Netti]

..... explain to me this ultimate expression of selective morality known as hate crimes.

I agree Nick, hate crimes pose a serious threat to all communities. Although reliable data on the extent of hate speech are currently not available, anecdotal reports and testimony from Internet discussion groups and community organizations suggest that hate speech is rather widespread. I note this only because hate speech may be part of the ideological basis for hate crimes.

Political rivalries tend to intensify at election time, which might explain your selective attention to any possible indication of a "hate crime" at this time. I wasn't sure why you called this thread "hate crimes, though. The second paragraph of the referent article reads: "Los Angeles County sheriff’s officials said the mannequin sporting a beehive hairdo, glasses and a red coat does not rise to the level of a hate crime." It seems the LA police doesn't feel there's a problem, but you do. Maybe the scene qualifies as a hateful political communication? Hard to say given that people decorate for Halloween.

In one of your other threads you made it clear that you're concerned about the qualifications of a presidential candidate. I realize that it's probably not your intention to be doubling the standard, but I was wondering about the extent to which your concerns about qualifications extends to Palin as Vice Presidential candidate based on a consideration of her tendency toward hate speech? In this connection, I thought I'd call your attention to this notable conclusion:

Sarah Palin's conduct has gone far past the bounds of decency, and far past even the most dangerous efforts of any previous candidate for such high office. This is an inexcusable, unforgivable, and unacceptable transgression and my belief is that she should be removed from consideration for the office of Vice President for her dangerous, unethical and unamerican display of irresponsibility.
​

What Sarah Palin Is Saying - Anil Dash

It is true that the above comment is unsubstantiated in the sense that it's not based on direct comparisons with other Vice Presidential candidates. However, don't think you'll have any trouble finding people who would tell you that they feel Palin's aggressive speechifying raises serious questions about her appropriateness for office.

Interestingly, though, Ms. Palin may indeed have lowered the standard for political communications during this US election time without so much as a peep from the same folks who are apparently prepared to go into Primal Scream mode about a nonexistent "hate crime."

 

[juantoo3]

Political rivalries tend to intensify at election time, which might explain your selective attention to any possible indication of a "hate crime" at this time. I wasn't sure why you called this thread "hate crimes, though. The second paragraph of the referent article reads: "Los Angeles County sheriff’s officials said the mannequin sporting a beehive hairdo, glasses and a red coat does not rise to the level of a hate crime." It seems the LA police doesn't feel there's a problem, but you do. Maybe the scene qualifies as a hateful political communication? Hard to say given that people decorate for Halloween.

I think I do get the gist of what Nick is trying to say though...here in Florida last year a ruckus was raised and "primal screams" of "HATE CRIME!" were issued over a noose that a high school student placed in a tree near a lunch bench frequented by black students, and all hell broke loose over that for a couple of months. I don't recall if they caught the perp, but considering the level of political rhetoric far outweighed the crime, I think that stupid kid would have gotten strung up himself if the community could get their hands on him.

So yes, I do see a double standard. Let's face it, if that effigy was Obama instead of Palin, all hell would break loose across the country...and all of us here know it but won't dare say it. Public figures including politicians are fair game, but I wonder just how fair and how far if Obama is elected before standard political punditry transforms "magically" into hate speech?

Equality is still a bit of a pipe dream. We talk a big talk, but now reverse discrimination is the order of the day...and it goes largely unchallenged, dismissed by authorities like the LAPD. What is shocking to me is that the feminist movement hasn't latched onto this...but then I guess Palin isn't suitable material to be defended by such lofty liberal ideals...and then we are back at what is hate and what is not...and all too often the parameters are more than a bit fuzzy.

Enough by me, unrepentent conservative that I am, or all that hate will be foisted on me...wouldn't be the first time.

Luv ya'll anyway!

 

[juantoo3]

Hate crimes using selective morality as a form of legal intimidation is a liberal idea.

Ah, now you've missed the point. Selective morality and legal intimidation span the entire political spectrum.

 

[Tao_Equus]

Perhaps some of the liberal minds here can explain to me this ultimate expression of selective morality known as hate crimes. Not even two glasses of merlot can allow me to see this as anything other than sheer politically correct stupidity. A hate crime is defined as::

A legal term that describes criminal acts motivated by prejudice. The term ethnoviolence is a broader term that describes acts of intimidation ...
www.publiceye.org/glossary/glossary_big.html

American Renaissance News: Effigy of Sarah Palin Hanging by a Noose Creates Uproar in West Hollywood



Hanging a black man could be considered a hate crime but hanging a white woman may not. What do they think it is, a love crime?

Some PC fool will define hate crimes by how THEY evaluate each incident.

Will some of the liberals here please explain this lunacy?

Well my thoughts are that 2 glasses of merlot release you from every pretence of decency, and pretence is the operative. Your overt racism has been clear to me from the beginning. Even though I backed you at the very start of your time here in the discrimination over the denial of the Armenian genocide I soon realised that the motivation for your anger had nothing to do with that. A fondness for your own narrow intellect, (not that mine is any broader but at least I do know my limitations), and the paranoia of the "hate is easier than understand" malcontent has shone through in so many of your posts. To be honest I pity you. Really pity you. And I have lived long enough to know better than to offer advice to you. But starting this thread is an obnoxious frigging of your own ego, a game playing to try and usurp a forum, that has never before had to counter an overt racist, for your own amusment. I just hope the mods and management see through your contempt for everybody here.


tao

 

[Netti-Netti]

So yes, I do see a double standard. Let's face it, if that effigy was Obama instead of Palin, all hell would break loose across the country...and all of us here know it but won't dare say it.

Whoah there! Based on previous exprience, I expect the reaction would be minimal. How's that? There have been at least four (4) documented Obama effigy cases - complete with a noose around the neck - that got virtually no airplay. (Too bad, no jab against MSM to be had here. ) Apparently you weren't aware of those either, which should tell you they didn't receive much coverage. These incidents were reported, but as far as I know there was no uproar or hell breaking loose.

Isn't it interesting that you would assume effigy episodes would obtain only for a Republican candidate. To me this reflects the kind of selectivity that can become inveterate. Time to remove the political blinders !

 

[Nick_A]

Well my thoughts are that 2 glasses of merlot release you from every pretence of decency, and pretence is the operative. Your overt racism has been clear to me from the beginning. Even though I backed you at the very start of your time here in the discrimination over the denial of the Armenian genocide I soon realised that the motivation for your anger had nothing to do with that. A fondness for your own narrow intellect, (not that mine is any broader but at least I do know my limitations), and the paranoia of the "hate is easier than understand" malcontent has shone through in so many of your posts. To be honest I pity you. Really pity you. And I have lived long enough to know better than to offer advice to you. But starting this thread is an obnoxious frigging of your own ego, a game playing to try and usurp a forum, that has never before had to counter an overt racist, for your own amusment. I just hope the mods and management see through your contempt for everybody here.


tao

It is your hatred of I know not what that is poisoning you and forcing you to becomes simply foolish. When I finally usurp this forum you will be charged an obnoxious fee when appropriate payable by credit card.