Hooray for Hate Crime Laws!!!

[Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.Did you miss your activation email?]

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

September 09, 2010, 07:46:22 AM

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Advanced search

   

Please contribute to the college fund benefiting Nathan Wager's two children, Little Nate and Madalena.

[Today]

• Blue Belt Requirements? by csmathog [Today at 07:32:02 AM]
• Ask: nphocus by bhfsim [Today at 06:48:24 AM]
• Stephen Hawking's Controv... by bhfsim [Today at 06:44:46 AM]
• Ask RudeBoyJohnny: by bhfsim [Today at 06:35:00 AM]
• Cruise ship fun by bhfsim [Today at 06:29:30 AM]

Members

• Total Members: 9125
• Latest: Detective Sherlock Jacobs

Stats

• Total Posts: 1219326
• Total Topics: 78787
• Online Today: 94
• Online Ever: 297
• (April 02, 2010, 06:46:42 PM)

Users Online

• Users: 9
• Guests: 54
• Total: 63
• madeofolives
  VisBjj
  Sir Taps
  ChokeLikeYouMeanIt
  Hideous Haircut
  everlast
  klif
  csmathog
  

NHB GEAR NEWS

Email:

[MardiGras Bandit]

See, this is what I'm talking about. Any time someone questions the reason Matthew Shepard was killed, someone breaks out with some strawman non-response about "he didn't deserve what happened to him", or better yet, "regardless of why he was killed, it's clear that he was killed because he was gay."

It reveals much about a person when they can't imagine any reason for violent junkies to kill someone other then the victims sexuality.

[DeltaSigChi4]

It reveals more when a person states that another person deserved to die because of their sexual preference or leanings, or to be raped because of their sexual preference or leanings, or because they engaged in consuming libations.

Or, or, or, that a person can't shut their fucking mouths, proverbial of course, in regards to a subject without a weak attempted hijack going on and on and on and on for days (literally) about a solved decade old case.

E

[CF (#3)]

Selah

[MardiGras Bandit]

Or, or, or, that a person can't shut their fucking mouths, proverbial of course, in regards to a subject without a weak attempted hijack going on and on and on and on for days (literally)...

Freudian slip?

[rudini]

See, this is what I'm talking about. Any time someone questions the reason Matthew Shepard was killed, someone breaks out with some strawman non-response about "he didn't deserve what happened to him", or better yet, "regardless of why he was killed, it's clear that he was killed because he was gay."

It reveals much about a person when they can't imagine any reason for violent junkies to kill someone other then the victims sexuality.

except there's no indications that they were violent junkies--- just drug dealers. you simply don't need to torture someone for an hour who's tied to a fence to take $30. drugs make you do crazy s**t, but come one you honestly think there was no homophobia involved? especially when the whole original defense they used was "gay-panic"? don't be a moron.

are you also willing to believe the three who dragged james byrd around from their truck weren't entirely sure he was there because they were drug addicts too?

sometimes things really are as they appear. don't be a pawn for politicians who are trying to appease the hate-mongering sector of their voter/donor base. the bill actually does strengthen current laws and forces all states to abide by a certain standard. there are zero free speech ramifications... that's the real strawman argument.

[MardiGras Bandit]

I just go by the best facts I find, and the best facts I find suggest he was killed trying to buy drugs. Whether or not I feel homophobia was involved doesn't make any difference on what actually happened. My problem with the mythology surrounding his death has nothing to do with some obnoxious troll's claims I'm happy a gay guy died, it's that the entire story is based around people desperately wanting to believe that he was some nice guy who was murdered because he was gay. The evidence suggests he wasn't either of those things.

I don't know anything about the James Byrd case. I'm under the impression that he was killed by violent racists, but if I found valid information that seriously suggested otherwise I'd change my view of the murder. What would you do?

[ChokingHazard]

See, this is what I'm talking about. Any time someone questions the reason Matthew Shepard was killed, someone breaks out with some strawman non-response about "he didn't deserve what happened to him", or better yet, "regardless of why he was killed, it's clear that he was killed because he was gay."

It reveals much about a person when they can't imagine any reason for violent junkies to kill someone other then the victims sexuality.

except there's no indications that they were violent junkies--- just drug dealers. you simply don't need to torture someone for an hour who's tied to a fence to take $30. drugs make you do crazy s**t, but come one you honestly think there was no homophobia involved? especially when the whole original defense they used was "gay-panic"? don't be a moron.

are you also willing to believe the three who dragged james byrd around from their truck weren't entirely sure he was there because they were drug addicts too?

sometimes things really are as they appear. don't be a pawn for politicians who are trying to appease the hate-mongering sector of their voter/donor base. the bill actually does strengthen current laws and forces all states to abide by a certain standard. there are zero free speech ramifications... that's the real strawman argument.

there is an indication that they were violent junkies, seeing as how they beat a man to death.  but placing all the blame on either drugs or homophobia is the type of logic people use when they try to rationalize irrational behavior. 


Zero free speech ramifications?

(A) IN GENERAL- Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, in any circumstance described in subparagraph (B), willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability of any person--

all of the acts described before "because" are already illegal.  The law does not criminalize violent acts committed against certain people, it makes the opinion of the person committing the act illegal.  One could argue that opinions grounded in things such as racism and homophobia are wrong.  While I agree with that statement, the fact that laws protecting ideas are not in place to protect ideas that are normally agreed to be "right" still stands. 

[ChokingHazard]

also, there is no "hate monger voting bloc".  I know quite a few gay persons and none of them, as far as I can tell, live in perpetual fear of running into a hate filled individual who beats them to death.

[DeltaSigChi4]

Who cares?

E

[ChokingHazard]

Don't you hold opinions which were considered "wrong" by the powers that be just a couple years ago?

[kebam]

Who cares?

E

no one does.........about you.


hahahahaha

[DeltaSigChi4]

An opinion can't be right or wrong, it just is. Moreover, you righties become more like the very personafication of Himmler with each passing calendar day.

E

[thebaadtouchh]

An opinion can't be right or wrong, it just is. Moreover, you righties become more like the very personafication of Himmler with each passing calendar day. I still eat my own poop. It gets better everyday.

E

[bhfsim]

An opinion can't be right or wrong, it just is. Moreover, you righties become more like the very personafication of Himmler with each passing calendar day.

E

You still believe in a right and left? That's funny.

[ChokingHazard]

"the personification of [insert person's name]" = word garbage