Definition please *caution foul lanuage*

[lazydullard]

I'm a pretty normal guy. I was throwing in what a pretty normal guy has for the definition. Anecdote: When I asked my father what a hate crime was when in grade school, he essentially told me that (although in an even more immflammatory way).

he also told me that minorities were non-white people.

If I offended anyone, I apologize. I was just throwing some plain-speak definition. The definition is what the masses believe it to be

i have no real opinion on hate crime legislation. it hasn't been in place long enough to weigh accuracetly how much it hurts or help. maybe in 100 years, history books will be citing this as one of the first steps in educating the masses against hate. you have to force people to learn, and this is easiest through punishment.

[Rottweiler]

"The point to that post, poster-formerly-known-as-Imported-Memory, was to elicit a response from him in the attempt to define the term "minority group."

Really? It came across to me as a blatant insult, and a value judgement based on a text format which carries no emotional cues whatsoever. In fact, logically the response to your query should have been to feel insulted by your condescending tone and to tell you to f*** off.

As text-based formats have no inherent cues by which to express emotion, I may be taking your response as being more insulting than you intended- perhaps, much as you seem to have taken Lazydullard's comments as 'ignorant' and 'having zero contribution'. 

This perceived attitude does nothing but tell newer members here that their posts will be judged both insultingly and condescendingly, and will quickly result in taking our opinions elsewhere, where we won't be shat upon.

I would say Lazydullard was far more polite and understanding.

Also, 'Military Intelligence' is an oxymoron. 'Violent Peace' is an oxymoron. 'Minority Group' is not an oxymoron, because 'minority' refers to a percentage of a larger sample, and has no inherent numerical basis. If you have a group of 100 people, and 99 are left-handed and 1 is right-handed, that person is A minority, singular.

If that same group of 100 has 90 Left-handers and 10 right-handers, they are still numerically a minority yet by most standards 10 people constitute a 'group'. In technical terms, perhaps 'Minority Subgroup' might be more accurate, but as few if any of the people posting here hold Doctorates in Sociology, I beleive it is easier to use the term 'Minority Group'.
 
 
Moving on, the term 'Hate Crime' is a specific legal connotation for a crime committed with the motivation of (solely or primarily) emotional hatred for a specific Group. A group of African-Americans attacking someone because they are Caucasian is a 'Hate Crime'. Attacking someone because you hate their choice of sexual lifestyle is a 'Hate Crime'.

Of course, it's never that simple- few people are unstable enough to attack or harm someone purely due to hatred for their particular group...at least outside of the Middle East. Usually there is some historical or propoganda-based reasoning, which while it doesn't make much sense to others, is viewed as valid to the attacker.

Now, may I suggest that this particular thread- and other threads- be free of pointless agression in future? I enjoy a stimulating argument as much as the next person, but perceived condescension and overly agressive responses cause discussions to break down into mere spouting of judgemental egos.

[Taylor-MadeAK]

As text-based formats have no inherent cues by which to express emotion, I may be taking your response as being more insulting than you intended- perhaps, much as you seem to have taken Lazydullard's comments as 'ignorant' and 'having zero contribution'.

It was sarcasm, and as such, deliberately worded to be insulting.  What can I say?  I'm an asshole.  That's why people like me so much! 

I would say Lazydullard was far more polite and understanding.

In his response, yes.  But I hardly consider this to be "polite and understanding:"

if your crime affects a member of a minority group, it's a hate crime, and you are a racist, and you will be found guilty.

Actually, I'd call it sarcasm, and that's how I took it.  I met it with like sarcasm to spark exactly the turn of topic that has taken place.  Mission accomplished.

Moving on.

Also, 'Military Intelligence' is an oxymoron. 'Violent Peace' is an oxymoron. 'Minority Group' is not an oxymoron, because 'minority' refers to a percentage of a larger sample, and has no inherent numerical basis. If you have a group of 100 people, and 99 are left-handed and 1 is right-handed, that person is A minority, singular.

If that same group of 100 has 90 Left-handers and 10 right-handers, they are still numerically a minority yet by most standards 10 people constitute a 'group'. In technical terms, perhaps 'Minority Subgroup' might be more accurate, but as few if any of the people posting here hold Doctorates in Sociology, I beleive it is easier to use the term 'Minority Group'.

You are technically 100% correct.  You did, however, miss my point entirely.  What I was trying to point out was how silly it is to separate human beings into "majority" and "minority" groups based on gender, race, creed, or sexual preference.  Come on, you don't see that?  I bleed red, you bleed red; what difference does it make what color our skins are, which God we believe in, or what kind of private parts we or our significant others have?!

Moving on, the term 'Hate Crime' is a specific legal connotation for a crime committed with the motivation of (solely or primarily) emotional hatred for a specific Group. A group of African-Americans attacking someone because they are Caucasian is a 'Hate Crime'. Attacking someone because you hate their choice of sexual lifestyle is a 'Hate Crime'.

Of course, it's never that simple- few people are unstable enough to attack or harm someone purely due to hatred for their particular group...at least outside of the Middle East. Usually there is some historical or propoganda-based reasoning, which while it doesn't make much sense to others, is viewed as valid to the attacker.

Or in America's "Bible Belt," where the Ku Klux Klan yet lives on.  You probably haven't met my Alaska Native in-laws either, one of whom nearly got himself killed attacking me because he couldn't stand the thought of his sister dating a white guy.

Now, may I suggest that this particular thread- and other threads- be free of pointless agression in future? I enjoy a stimulating argument as much as the next person, but perceived condescension and overly agressive responses cause discussions to break down into mere spouting of judgemental egos.

Sorry, I can't in good conscience make that kind of promise.

I'm a pretty normal guy. I was throwing in what a pretty normal guy has for the definition. Anecdote: When I asked my father what a hate crime was when in grade school, he essentially told me that (although in an even more immflammatory way).

he also told me that minorities were non-white people.

For his generation, your dad was absolutely correct.  "Minorities" did and still does mean "non-caucasion people."  My hope is that we'll soon see the end of that kind of inhuman thinking, if not in our generation then at least in our children's.  Right now we're seeing the pendulum swing the other way with "minorities" (including women) receiving preference for jobs and public assistance, which really isn't much better.  It's like over-correcting after taking a turn badly while driving your car: just as or even more dangerous than the bad turn was to begin with.

[lazydullard]

the spark was partially my fault. sorry. I love to see ego's collide I have a "survival of the fittest" approach to arguements and philosophy, although I didn't intend to escalate it this high.

the "hate-crime" stuff is definitely over-correcting, but it might help. before, all progress was made entirely just by people and individuals (victims). maybe the government can actually inflict mass changes in thinking. Although I'm usually against government legislating my emotions/values.

although, I find that, for a lot of people, it's just perpuating and, legally defining, this "gap" between people. Are the goals behind hate crime legisilation seeking to bring people together and end this hatred? Or is it only meant to lessen the actual occurence of these crimes? It really doesn't seem the laws are very capable of either.

thanks for everyone's support, but when i open I can of worms, trust me that I read the label first . i think it woulda gone better if I hadn't forgot I posted in here for like 2 days.

[Taylor-MadeAK]

No worries, man.  As I mentioned before, I took your post as the sarcasm that it was obviously (to me) meant to be and replied in kind.  Together we managed to steer this topic into a meaningful discussion that doesn't focus on Oni's stupidity.  That was, as far as I'm concerned, as noble and lofty a goal as any.

[Rottweiler]

Considering that I have been deeply involved in the situation you refer to as 'Oni's stupidity' and so far as I know, you have not, perhaps a more noble goal would be to seek to help Oni in the situation instead of labeling him a moron. Maybe because as his friend, I support him enough to actually investigate the incident before I blame him for the entire event. You should do the same, it might make your opinion valid instead of based entirely on a flawed description of the event.

Indeed, after discussing it with him, I found this entire discussion was intended as a discussion of a simple definition, and had nothing to do with any specific incidents, and hence I have attempted as best I can to answer it in that vein.

To your specific points:

You are technically 100% correct.  You did, however, miss my point entirely.  What I was trying to point out was how silly it is to separate human beings into "majority" and "minority" groups based on gender, race, creed, or sexual preference.  Come on, you don't see that?  I bleed red, you bleed red; what difference does it make what color our skins are, which God we believe in, or what kind of private parts we or our significant others have?!

No, I didn't miss your point, buried beneath your attitude though it was. Whether you beleive the idea of 'Minority Group' or not, it is a legal definition. I agree that it is silly, and few people fight as hard as I do to bring the actual notion of equality to the world, but I also do not feel my personal view somehow makes legal definitions less real.

However, as this thread ceased to have merit to me the moment arrogance and insult were used as a valid method of debate, I will bow out and allow Taylor-MadeAK and Lazydullard their meaningful discussion.

[Taylor-MadeAK]

Considering that I have been deeply involved in the situation you refer to as 'Oni's stupidity' and so far as I know, you have not, perhaps a more noble goal would be to seek to help Oni in the situation instead of labeling him a moron. Maybe because as his friend, I support him enough to actually investigate the incident before I blame him for the entire event. You should do the same, it might make your opinion valid instead of based entirely on a flawed description of the event.

I love it when people make assumptions. =)  I'll let Oni fill you in on just how much I know about the situation and what I've done and offered to do to help him.

However, as this thread ceased to have merit to me the moment arrogance and insult were used as a valid method of debate, I will bow out and allow Taylor-MadeAK and Lazydullard their meaningful discussion.

Bye!

[Oni]

I hate to say this. But I laugh at all three of you. For many reasons...Though TM should not have posted any hint or reason behind my stupidity. Why because this topic had nothing to do with the situation were I "was stupid." Hell even I will admit I tend to run my muzzel and create fun and drama.

But two error's happened on this thread.

1. mentions to the situation that this topic spawned from. (meaning I did not want that sitation mentioned in this thread) This topic's Idea simply came from said situation.

2. People started to voice opinions and fly a bit away with there words.

I will not lock this thread unless things go really bad.

Though the feline in me is very tempted to let you guys hash this out to your hearts content....and I will simply sit back laugh and enjoy the show. But the admin in me says the childishness needs to stop on all parts.

Oni's Warning.

[Taylor-MadeAK]

Hey, if you didn't want certain things mentioned in this thread, you coulda said something to me about it a couple days ago when I first posted it. 

[Goman Fox]

Hm, things seem to be a bit tense in this thread.  Cat's been nagging at me lately to read what's been going on here and even post on it, so here I am, time to post.

Gonna try to relax the discussion as best as I can by just sharing my views on the topic, rather than commenting on what has already been said that has elevated the tension as high as it's gone.  Not sure how well it's going to go though because most of what I have to say has already been said one way or another, but at least it gets Cat off my shoulders.  Hopefully it all makes sense, I've been sick lately so my mind may not be all together right now.

I agree with Herman, what Imported Memory (--) originally said defines 'hate crime' pretty well, it's a crime committed against a person based on the group, or groups, they belong to, or crimes committed to a group in general.

I remember back in high school, one paper that was assigned in an English class made us choose a side of a debatable topic and defend it.  I was young, about 15 or 16, had realized I was gay probably a year or two before, and believed that the topic of 'hate crimes' would be good because I believed that gays were constant victims of hate crimes and agreed that there should be laws in place to punish "those damn homophobes."

In doing my research in the topic, however, my views began to change.  I think the thing that stuck out to me the most was the fact that it is very difficult to know and prove what a person was thinking while they were committing a crime, and that's all that really separates a "hate crime" from a "normal crime."  I could be walking down the street and a stranger could pull a gun on me and yell out "Give me your wallet you goddamn faggot!"  Chances are the person doesn't know I'm gay, and is only using the word in an attempt to frighten me or piss me off, it's just a coincidence that he said "faggot" to someone that is actually gay.  Is this a hate crime?  Well if there were witnesses that knew I was gay, but it wasn't obvious to the stranger, it could probably be described as a hate crime, but it really isn't.  Just like if the person mugging me was Hispanic or Asian, I could probably get away with saying it was because I'm White, but it couldn't really be proven, nor is it the real reason why the crime was committed.

I think hate crime laws are trying to do the right thing, but as is, they're pointless.  The only way they can really help is if you can know for sure exactly what motivated the person to commit the crime, and if it were possible to do so, it would probably be far too invasive into another person's privacy.  Besides, as Scooter pointed out, crimes generally aren't committed without reason, especially crimes targeting specific people.  Sure, there are some cases where people are killed just because they're in the wrong place at the wrong time, like when someone goes crazy and decides to shoot anyone they see in a public place, but for the most part, violent crimes against a person or group are done for specific reasons.  Why should you get a stiffer sentence just because the victims belong to certain groups?  Are minority groups special or something?

Also, as Herman pointed out, once a crime is committed, why should it matter what the reason was?  In the extreme case, if you're dead, you're not going to be any more or less dead no matter what the reason the murderer had.  If you were assaulted, it's not going to hurt any different if it was because of your sexual orientation.  If your property was vandalized, it's not going to magically fix itself when you find out it was because of your race.

Really if they're going to have laws against hate crimes that give stiffer punishments to try to deter people from committing crimes against specific groups, why not create worse punishments for all crimes?

[Goman Fox]

Since this thread has gone off topic too much and come down to off-topic arguments between two people, it's being locked.  I have no problems with people discussing or arguing over Oni's stupidity (or lack thereof) in any situation, but this isn't exactly the best place for it.

Also being locked by Cat's request, so go to him if you don't like it.