Rationalization

[unixronin]

Q:  What do you do when you and two of your buddies, in a drunken haze, beat another acquaintance to death over a period of 24 hours or so, wrap his naked body in a tarpaulin and hide it in his garage, then get turned in to the police ten days later by a third friend to whom you boasted of the murder (and to whom you emailed camera-phone photos, at work, during the process)?

A:  If you live in Crotherton, Indiana, you claim that he was gay¹, and that it's therefore OK because you were afraid Teh Gay would get on you.

[1]  He wasn't.

Comments

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

The trouble is, there's so many things you can hate people for. Wrong race. Wrong gender. Wrong sexual orientation. Wrong color skin. Wrong color clothes. Wrong color hair. Too much hair. Not enough hair. Speak the wrong language. Wrong political party. Wrong diet. Wrong religion. Wrong sect of your religion. Wrong sub-sect of your sect. No religion. Wrong income class. Support the wrong sports team. Listen to the wrong music. Too thin, too fat, too short, too tall.

Where do you stop?

Committing murder should be just as much a crime (and after all, the victim is just as dead) whatever the motivation. Terrorizing or harassing someone should be just as much a crime whatever the motivation. If you declare some people to be entitled to special, extra protection under the law, where do you draw the line between the ones entitled to special protection and the ones who aren't? What do you do when everyone's entitled to special protection?

I think this is one of those situations where it's impossible to both treat everyone equally and at the same time treat everyone fairly. But you know that if you treat some people unequally, someone will complain that it's unfair.


But one thing I know for sure is that if we ever want to fix the problem, our legal system has to stop accepting "But he was GAAAAAYYY!!!!" as a defense. You felt threatened because you thought he was coming on to you? THEN FUCKING GO SOMEWHERE ELSE.

[unix-jedi.livejournal.com]

our legal system has to stop accepting "But he was GAAAAAYYY!!!!" as a defense.

I don't think that it does.

It's possible that some jurors might be swayed - but that's the problem we've got with juries. (Why's OJ out playing golf today?)

Given the story as reported (which is pretty bad), I think the problem is that there's some local political clout with the parentage of one of the accused - more so than his lame excuse. (Which is really just a version of the "Twinkie Defense")

In fact, the attention that this has drawn has been soley because of that stupid attempt. I believe that he will decide that he chose.... poorly.

[dirtynumbangel.livejournal.com]

Again... it's not about terrorizing or harassing a single person. Hate crimes are about terrorizing and harassing an entire group of people.

[tabbifli.livejournal.com]

As a member of your example populations - women - I'm afraid I have to agree with the white, heterosexual men above.

Someone spraypaints "die, bitch" on my garage, I call the police. And then I call my painter (who happens to be a sweet, sweet pastor, and will be very offended on my behalf. Would be on yours, too).

As far as being afraid of more? Been there. Done that. Got the therapy.

You want to make hate crimes go away? Educate them away, don't legislate them away. Legislation just makes things stupider.

Here's your byline for ANY legislation: Is this a law that is worth someone being killed about? Because remember, if it wants to government can, ultimately, impose capital punishment as the final sentance to any broken law.

Do you think hate crimes should be punished by someone's death? Honestly?

[dirtynumbangel.livejournal.com]

Your government can, perhaps. Mine is somewhat more civilized.

[tabbifli.livejournal.com]

What a ridiculous dodge.

Government reserves the right to itself to practice capital punishment. Regardless of if it says that it will not right now do so, it certainly will not allow the citizenry to do so, under any circumstances. Government can, and will, change its own position on any number of topics at any given time; this could, under sufficient pressure, become one those topics.

If you cannot think critically, you cannot act, you can only react, and then not necessarily appropriatly. You are, in short, a panicked sheep. And it is pointless to argue with a sheep.

[dirtynumbangel.livejournal.com]

Of course, the usual last resort for the intellectually stunted... anyone who disagrees with you is stupid.

You're pathetic. I assume you're a Libertarian. The two seem to go hand in hand.

[tabbifli.livejournal.com]

Amazingly, you're wrong. I have no use for the Libertarians.

I didn't say you're stupid. I'm actually assuming you're quite bright, otherwise you wouldn't be on Alaric's journal - stupid people don't tend to be here; they generally fail to understand him.

I said you're a sheep, and in this particular argument, you are. You can't see past your fears, and so you want someone else to fix the problem for you. Legislate it away, make it so that the other side's fears are bigger than yours, and then yours will not be a problem.

It doesn't work that way. It never has, it never will. Trying to explain this to you is pointless, because you don't want to hear it, you don't want to listen, you don't want to do anything but make the fear go away. You're a sheep in this regard. I don't know you well enough to know if you are in any other way. But this is where it ends for me - feel free to insult me more if you'd like, if it'll make you feel better. I don't mind, really. But trying to show you that legislation won't work is pointless, because you're too damned scared to listen.

[dirtynumbangel.livejournal.com]

Oh honey. Do you really want to go there?

It's not about legislating away fear. It's about punishing severely those who attempt to instill fear through terror.

Get the fuck over yourself, get off your fucking high horse, and grow the fuck up.

[unix-jedi.livejournal.com]

I have no use for the Libertarians.

Oh, C'mon.

Remember, "You can always use them as a bad example!"

[tabbifli.livejournal.com]

Hee. True.

Although there are some very nice Libertarians out there. :) Individually.

As a political party, I find them more or less incomprehensible. You can't use what you can't comprehend, usually. :)