On 26/08/11 10:13, d wrote:
So whats your solution then? Swing the pendulum so far the other way that
it alienates white heterosexuals?

You got any evidence that white heterosexuals as a group feel alienated
by tolerance of others?

Ian

On 26/08/11 10:18, d wrote:
On Fri, 26 Aug 2011 10:08:22 +0100
The Real wrote:
On 26/08/11 08:27, 1506 wrote:
Common sense at last.

"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen."

(Albert Einstein)

Which goes to prove even Einstein can get it wrong (we won't mention quantum
theory). Do you know many 18 year olds with common sense?

Whooooooooooosh. And point proved, I think.

Ian

On Fri, 26 Aug 2011 02:31:19 -0700 (PDT)
1506 wrote:
But, why, I ask was the guys horrible death worse because he was
homosexual? Would you or I not have felt the blows just as much?

For some people it seems that suffering for what you are is a worse fate than
suffering for what you have. Presumably because you can change the latter
but not the former. Personally I think its a just a convenient soapbox for
self styled activists (ie people who make a lot of noise) who get off on self
righteous indignation to jump up and down and bang their drum.

B2003

On 25/08/2011 21:29, Clive D. W. Feather wrote:
In message
,
1506 wrote:
If I am mugged it is a crime. If a homosexual is mugged it is a hate
crime.

False.

If a homosexual is mugged *because* she is homosexual, it is a hate
crime. If she is mugged because some low-life wants cash for his drug
habit, it is not a hate crime, just a crime.



Wasn't there a rule that the police have to investigate a crime as a
racist attack (or presumably later "hate" crime) if the victim believed
it to be one. They can then decide that it is not a racist/hate crime
but they have to investigate first.

On Fri, 26 Aug 2011 10:59:16 +0100
The Real Doctor wrote:
On 26/08/11 10:18, d wrote:
On Fri, 26 Aug 2011 10:08:22 +0100
The Real wrote:
On 26/08/11 08:27, 1506 wrote:
Common sense at last.

"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen."

(Albert Einstein)

Which goes to prove even Einstein can get it wrong (we won't mention quantum
theory). Do you know many 18 year olds with common sense?

Whooooooooooosh. And point proved, I think.

No , not whoosh and point not proved. Common sense is something you aquire
as you get older. Him trying to equate it with something being fixed when
young is plain wrong. He wasn't trying to make the point that because
teenagers were clueless than means everyone who claims common sense is also
clueless - thats simply your reading of it.

B2003

On Fri, 26 Aug 2011 10:56:06 +0100
The Real Doctor wrote:
On 26/08/11 10:13, d wrote:
So whats your solution then? Swing the pendulum so far the other way that
it alienates white heterosexuals?

You got any evidence that white heterosexuals as a group feel alienated
by tolerance of others?

When that tolerance swings to positive discrimination then yes. And also
when that tolerance goes against the public good - ie I have zero tolerance
of the muslim women who cover their faces (france had the right idea there)
or rastas who say that smoking canabis is part of their "religion" (what
religion would that be - the one where you laze around and do bugger all 24/7?).

B2003

On Aug 26, 2:54*am, The Real Doctor wrote:
On 26/08/11 10:31, 1506 wrote:

The guy was badly beaten. *And, IMHO, no-one should die like that.
There were no clues as to motive. *However, the young fellow in
question happened to be homosexual. *The case became a rallying point
for campaigners against hate crimes. *Homosexuals for hundreds of
miles around demanded hate crime legislation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Shepard

But, why, I ask was the guys horrible death worse because he was
homosexual? *Would you or I not have felt the blows just as much?

His experience was no worse than yours or mine might have been. But the
fact that he was tortured to death for being gay /additionally/
threatened other gay people and it's for that /additional/ effect that
/additional/ punishment is merited.

IIRC There was no evidence with regard to motive.

Or at least, that's the theory. Seems OK to me.

It is nonsense. Until now, in civilized countries, we have tried
people for actions not thoughts and speech. Big Brother has arrived.

On 26/08/11 11:17, d wrote:
No , not whoosh and point not proved. Common sense is something you aquire
as you get older. Him trying to equate it with something being fixed when
young is plain wrong.

But that's not what he's saying.

Ian

On 26/08/11 11:28, 1506 wrote:
On Aug 26, 2:54 am, The Real wrote:
On 26/08/11 10:31, 1506 wrote:

His experience was no worse than yours or mine might have been. But the
fact that he was tortured to death for being gay /additionally/
threatened other gay people and it's for that /additional/ effect that
/additional/ punishment is merited.

IIRC There was no evidence with regard to motive.

Or at least, that's the theory. Seems OK to me.

It is nonsense. Until now, in civilized countries, we have tried
people for actions not thoughts and speech. Big Brother has arrived.

Who said anything about trying people for their thoughts and speech?
It's the /action/ of putting people in a state of fear and distress
which is the potential crime, not the thought processes behind it.

There have long been criminal sanctions for making threats,
intimidation, threatening violence and so on.

Ian

PS I agree that we became more civilised when we stopped prosecuting
people for blasphemy.

On 26/08/11 11:01, d wrote:
On Fri, 26 Aug 2011 02:31:19 -0700 (PDT)
wrote:
But, why, I ask was the guys horrible death worse because he was
homosexual? Would you or I not have felt the blows just as much?

For some people it seems that suffering for what you are is a worse fate than
suffering for what you have. Presumably because you can change the latter
but not the former. Personally I think its a just a convenient soapbox for
self styled activists (ie people who make a lot of noise) who get off on self
righteous indignation to jump up and down and bang their drum.

If Mr Shepherd had been killed by a couple of thugs who didn't like him,
or his clothes, that would have been dreadful but individual. By killing
him for what he was, they were also threatening other gay men, and it's
that threat which merited further punishment.

It's precisely the reason why terrorist murders - which are intended to
put non-victims in a state of fear and distress - are generally punished
more harshly than non-terrorist ones. More victims.

Ian