Feminism vs. Feminism: A Treatise on Feminism

[We Do Not Kneel]

hahahalolwut

the specific motivation is irrelevant.

motivation is a huge part of sentencing. to say otherwise is pure ignorance.

[hahahalolwut]

We Do Not Kneel

hahahalolwut

the specific motivation is irrelevant.

motivation is a huge part of sentencing. to say otherwise is pure ignorance.

yes. but right now it's entirely up to the discretion of the judge how it's factored in to sentencing. i want to leave it that way.

[We Do Not Kneel]

hahahalolwut

We Do Not Kneel

hahahalolwut

the specific motivation is irrelevant.

motivation is a huge part of sentencing. to say otherwise is pure ignorance.

yes. but right now it's entirely up to the discretion of the judge how it's factored in to sentencing. i want to leave it that way.

so what you're saying is it's fine to have a two-tiered system as long as the judge says so.

[We Do Not Kneel]

Where Pretty Lies Perish

Why should one be given a more severe punishment if his crime was done out of hatred for a group rather than hatred of an individual. The victim is affected equally, so the only other justification is to assert one vet of values over another under the threat of violence. Weren't liberals supposed to be against the government encouraging one set of beliefs over another? Or was that only with regard to Christianity?

in the case of hate crimes, whole communities are victimized. it's not an assertion of one values voer another, it is punishing a crime based on its severity, which is what the law is supposed to do. it is a natural extension of the law.

[Where Pretty Lies Perish]

We Do Not Kneel

I am denying you even know what affirmative action even is.

"Affirmative action, known as positive discrimination in the United Kingdom, refers to policies that take factors including "race, color, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or national origin"[1] into consideration in order to benefit an underrepresented group "in areas of employment, education, and business"".
Woo, that was hard.

Quote:

No, however that is irrelevant. Who is doing the portraying? you are suggesting women are, like there is some kind of media conspiracy at work here.

No, I said collectivist feminists. I mentioned no media conspiracy. Interest groups are well known to act in concert to affect a certain change. In fact, that is what they are for.

Quote:

so some people are bullies. youa re kind of a jackass, maybe they were calling you out for being a jackass.

Thanks, d**k.
I'm not talking about that. You calling me a jackass is fair game.
What I oppose is groups who try to, say, take Rush Limbaugh off the air for saying something mean about women.

Quote:

support hate crime laws. they're based on sound legal principle.

And what principle is that?

Quote:

I'm Canadian. I think they're a good idea.

Ok, I'll bite. How are hate speech laws a good idea?

Quote:

I wish they all would. Some don't. Public birth control is huge, astronomically so, public benefit. If nothing else, it would reduce rates of children born into poverty which would have direct influence on crime rates and standards of living. also it would reduce the drain on public expenditures, as there would be fewer dependants.

I agree that it may be a public benefit, but it is often presented as a basic right, which it isn't.

Quote:

the misinformation here is that you failed to consider the nuance behind such policies. to say you're ignorant is, frankly, hoping for the best.

Any nuance is inconsequential. Each of those policies is irredeemable bad, so to soften them is only to soften a death blow.

[hahahalolwut]

We Do Not Kneel

hahahalolwut

We Do Not Kneel

hahahalolwut

the specific motivation is irrelevant.

motivation is a huge part of sentencing. to say otherwise is pure ignorance.

yes. but right now it's entirely up to the discretion of the judge how it's factored in to sentencing. i want to leave it that way.

so what you're saying is it's fine to have a two-tiered system as long as the judge says so.

no, i'm saying that it's not legislated into existence, like, say, the difference in punishments for crack and regular cocaine.

[We Do Not Kneel]

Where Pretty Lies Perish

Any nuance is inconsequential. .

and this is where i just leave you to your goosery. nuance is essentially what determines whether policy will succeed or fail. you cannot ignore the finer points of an issue and still manage it effectively. talking to you is pointless.

[We Do Not Kneel]

hahahalolwut

We Do Not Kneel

hahahalolwut

We Do Not Kneel

hahahalolwut

the specific motivation is irrelevant.

motivation is a huge part of sentencing. to say otherwise is pure ignorance.

yes. but right now it's entirely up to the discretion of the judge how it's factored in to sentencing. i want to leave it that way.

so what you're saying is it's fine to have a two-tiered system as long as the judge says so.

no, i'm saying that it's not legislated into existence, like, say, the difference in punishments for crack and regular cocaine.

and hate crimes are sentences based on intent and severity, which is the same distinction between, say, murder charges and manslaughter. stop trying to create an exception where none exists.

[hahahalolwut]

We Do Not Kneel

and hate crimes are sentences based on intent and severity, which is the same distinction between, say, murder charges and manslaughter. stop trying to create an exception where none exists.

the difference between murder charges and manslaughter are that there is intent, not what kind. this is not relevant to hate crime legislation.

[We Do Not Kneel]

hahahalolwut

We Do Not Kneel

and hate crimes are sentences based on intent and severity, which is the same distinction between, say, murder charges and manslaughter. stop trying to create an exception where none exists.

the difference between murder charges and manslaughter are that there is intent, not what kind. this is not relevant to hate crime legislation.

it is, because as i said to the other silly goose, it affects more than just the murdered.

[hahahalolwut]

We Do Not Kneel

hahahalolwut

We Do Not Kneel

and hate crimes are sentences based on intent and severity, which is the same distinction between, say, murder charges and manslaughter. stop trying to create an exception where none exists.

the difference between murder charges and manslaughter are that there is intent, not what kind. this is not relevant to hate crime legislation.

it is, because as i said to the other silly goose, it affects more than just the murdered.

all murder affects more than just the murdered.

[We Do Not Kneel]

hahahalolwut

We Do Not Kneel

hahahalolwut

We Do Not Kneel

and hate crimes are sentences based on intent and severity, which is the same distinction between, say, murder charges and manslaughter. stop trying to create an exception where none exists.

the difference between murder charges and manslaughter are that there is intent, not what kind. this is not relevant to hate crime legislation.

it is, because as i said to the other silly goose, it affects more than just the murdered.

all murder affects more than just the murdered.

immediate family members and friends. a hate crime is a deliberate act against a whole community, a whole group of individuals. it is almost always done to minorities, who are already at a disadvantage.

[hahahalolwut]

We Do Not Kneel

immediate family members and friends. a hate crime is a deliberate act against a whole community, a whole group of individuals. it is almost always done to minorities, who are already at a disadvantage.

why should larger groups be more legally protected than small groups? aren't small groups more vulnerable to hate?

[derp blerp]

do not hate

[Andy Worhal]

hahahalolwut

We Do Not Kneel

immediate family members and friends. a hate crime is a deliberate act against a whole community, a whole group of individuals. it is almost always done to minorities, who are already at a disadvantage.

why should larger groups be more legally protected than small groups? aren't small groups more vulnerable to hate?

not in cases of aristocracy