|
|
#21
11-25-2005, 09:56 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Not a racially aggravated attack
[ QUOTE ]
There's no justification for hatred based solely on race man. [/ QUOTE ] Did I ever say there was? I imagine I said some things which require an assumption about hatred to reach such a conclusion, but that false assumption is your problem and not mine, dude. 
|
|
#22
11-25-2005, 10:19 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Not a racially aggravated attack
These laws are so stupid. If you murder someone, why should you get more jailtime just because you were yelling "n*gger" or "wh*tey" or "ch*nk" or "sp*c" or "f*g" while committing the act? You murdered someone. You should be punished to the maximum regardless. All these stupid laws do is shift the attention away from the fact that an innocent was murdered and stir up a bunch of [censored] that's really irrelevant to ther case at hand.
|
|
#23
11-25-2005, 10:23 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Not a racially aggravated attack
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] if you can have mitigating circumstances it seems reasonable that you can have aggravating circumstances. [/ QUOTE ] But mitigating circumstances don't get your charges changed to a lesser crime; they are taken into account at sentencing. [/ QUOTE ] A good point.
|
|
#24
11-25-2005, 10:29 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Not a racially aggravated attack
[ QUOTE ]
I agree, and race would not be an issue in my mind at all in these matters if sites like this were not considered 100% legit while sites like this are considered racist, dangerous, extremist, and hateful. Either they are both legit or both racist. The one-sidedness of race issues in mainstream media has got to stop IMO. [/ QUOTE ] The two organisations are completely different. While I am far from a fan of the ADL, and think its one of the most visible propnents of the false criticism of Israel=anti-semitism equation adn is largely a tool of right-wing Israeli interests, it doesn;t at least generally peddle the sort of blatantly racist conspiracy theories that the National Vanguard does about Jews for example. National Vanguard is openly anti-semitic.
|
|
#25
11-25-2005, 10:40 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Not a racially aggravated attack
[ QUOTE ]
Did I ever say there was? I imagine I said some things which require an assumption about hatred to reach such a conclusion, but that false assumption is your problem and not mine, dude. [/ QUOTE ] Apologies, I was stating a fact, rather than making an assumption or accusation, sorry if I communicated it poorly, I have little time for the far right is all. I hate the word 'dude' no idea why. Regards Mack
|
|
#26
11-25-2005, 10:43 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Not a racially aggravated attack
[ QUOTE ]
These laws are so stupid. If you murder someone, why should you get more jailtime just because you were yelling "n*gger" or "wh*tey" or "ch*nk" or "sp*c" or "f*g" while committing the act? You murdered someone. You should be punished to the maximum regardless. All these stupid laws do is shift the attention away from the fact that an innocent was murdered and stir up a bunch of [censored] that's really irrelevant to ther case at hand. [/ QUOTE ] Sorry I didn't make them are I agree they are absurd, the only way I can (vaguely) defend such laws, is by saying that racist crimes are motiveless random violence, can't you see why this is different to say, a murder in self-defence? Mack
|
|
#27
11-25-2005, 10:54 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Not a racially aggravated attack
[ QUOTE ]
Sorry I didn't make them are I agree they are absurd, the only way I can (vaguely) defend such laws, is by saying that racist crimes are motiveless random violence, can't you see why this is different to say, a murder in self-defence? Mack [/ QUOTE ] Motiveless random violence is already illegal. We don't need specific laws for racially-motivated motiveless random violence. That's just silly. Killing in self-defense is not murder. But this is semantics. It sounds like we're generally in agreement on this.
|
|
#30
11-25-2005, 06:29 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Not a racially aggravated attack
The two sites clearly share one common theme: advancement of the interests of the race sponsoring the site at the expense of the other race. The methods are different but so are the circumstances so that's only natural.
An example of the ADL's audacity...they are demanding a public apology for a private voice message that Michael Jackson left for an advisor of his. Needless to say Jacko did not give permission to release any of it but the advisor had a fall-out with the superstar and used the private recordings to get revenge. Story here To violate someone's confidence, then blackmail him, then demand a public apology for something that was intended for an audience of one is absolutely sickening to me, and hopefully to most people with a decent sense of morals. Why doesn't anyone question what the advisor must have said to Jackson about the Jews to give him the confidence to make such statements in a message? You don't leave messages like that for someone with whom you've never discussed the topic before.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
