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

[dirtynumbangel.livejournal.com]

"But some animals are more equal than others"

That is not what I said, you intellectually dishonest fuck.

[unix-jedi.livejournal.com]

You said: that yes, extra protection is needed for some.

Extra protection is needed for some.
Some animals are more equal than others.

Well, if you're going to insist those two aren't very analogous, I belive you'll have to explain it to me. They certainly seem to be, well, identical to me.


That is not what I said, you intellectually dishonest fuck.

Thank you. This demonstrates exactly my problem with "Hate Crimes Laws".

You've dismissed my arguments solely because of your presumption of what "group(s)" I belong to. You've ignored that this case is in direct, diametric opposition to what you're now arguing.

Now you get (very) angry, and project "intellectual dishonesty" onto me - because I had the audacity to point out that your argument fails this case. (And I'm from a to-be-ignored class.)

Who's guilty of intellectual dishonesty here? Who's guilty of hating someone because of their class?

I don't know your class, I don't care. The fact that you have to presume classes (very incorrectly) for the people you disagree with, in order to dismiss their points demonstrates exactly my concern about how "Hate Crimes Law" is used.

You ignored all of that in order to slander and insult, only because of your bigotry. If you've got a irony meter, it ought to be pegged.

So, under your rationalization, you lose even more because you're hating me while being wrong!

[dirtynumbangel.livejournal.com]

Except that I'm not wrong.

I'll try and use small words--maybe that way you will understand. I'm not very hopeful, but I suppose it's a good deed to at least try to educate those who are regressive in their thinking.

Some groups are deserving of more protection is not 'some are more equal than others'; it is an attempt to address the fact that some groups are easier to victimize than others, and are frequently victimized for that reason amongst others.

Children? Unable to protect themselves, ergo deserving of more protection.
People of colour? Historically in North America (particularly the USA) had no recourse for protection, as even attempts at self-defence would be met with even more severe violence.
Queers? See above.
Women? See above.

Extra protection brings victimized groups up to the same level.


You are one disgusting person, you know that? I projected nothing on to you. You took what I said and twisted it to fit your preconceptions. That is intellectual dishonesty, you turd.

[dirtynumbangel.livejournal.com]

Oh, and I don't hate you.

I dislike you ebcause you are an intellectually dishonest fool who can't even argue his own laughable position without resorting to twisting what I have said.

I pity you because you are brainwashed by the peculiarly American 'git yer hands off me' attitude. As I said to the other person in this thread, I suspect you're a Libertarian. If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, fucks other ducks to make little baby ducks, and is often found swimming on ponds, it's probably a fucking duck.

I feel sorry for you because you are so privileged that you are completely unable to comprehend that some of us are not.

But hate you? No.