Hate Crimes Legislation - New England Patriots Forums

State · 10-31-2009, 08:20 AM

Very bad idea to criminalize thought, regardless of its wretchedness.

Speech that is unpopular is what needs to be protected, otherwise popular speech doesn't generally need the protection.

But Tim Lynch at Cato makes another point:

Quote:

If liberals write laws to “send messages,” can social conservatives do the same thing if they control the legislative assembly? Perhaps enact a criminal law against, say, adultery. Note that the point is not necessarily that the law be actually enforced or have any impact as far as reducing adultery in the jurisdiction. If the point is simply to “send a message,” liberals are going to be hard-pressed to lodge objections to conservative symbolic lawmaking.

Yep.

When Canada enacted similar laws against sexual harassment at the instigation of Catherine MacKinnon and Andrea Dworkin they first when against pro-lesbian publications. This is ironic since the late Dworkin was herself a lesbian, considering all sex between men and women to be rape, regardless of consent. She borrowed heavily from Marx, as feminists are wont to do, concoting the notion that men had all the power and women aren't able to give true consent.

Mrs.PatsFanInVa · 10-31-2009, 09:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by State

She borrowed heavily from Marx, as feminists are wont to do, concoting the notion that men had all the power and women aren't able to give true consent.

Um, just an observation, but I don't think you'd know what a feminist is "wont to do" if she came up and tattooed it on your *****.

Are you interested in anything other than race-baiting and sex-slandering? Coz if so, I haven't seen any evidence of it.

How frightening it must be to be you.

***apple strudel*** · 10-31-2009, 11:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by State

Very bad idea to criminalize thought, regardless of its wretchedness.

Um, intent is already part of the criminal code. There is a distinct lack of even basic rigor in your thinking.

Quote:

Originally Posted by State

Speech that is unpopular is what needs to be protected, otherwise popular speech doesn't generally need the protection.

Within the normal limits (e.g., incitement), nobody really disagrees with this.

Quote:

Originally Posted by State

But Tim Lynch at Cato makes another point:Yep.

When Canada enacted similar laws against sexual harassment at the instigation of Catherine MacKinnon and Andrea Dworkin they first when against pro-lesbian publications. This is ironic since the late Dworkin was herself a lesbian, considering all sex between men and women to be rape, regardless of consent. She borrowed heavily from Marx, as feminists are wont to do, concoting the notion that men had all the power and women aren't able to give true consent.

This supposed irony doesn't really seem to have much of a point. Try to flesh out at least some inkling of an argument rather than letting others do it for you.

***Harry Boy*** · 10-31-2009, 02:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mrs.PatsFanInVa

Um, just an observation, but I don't think you'd know what a feminist is "wont to do" if she came up and tattooed it on your *****.

Are you interested in anything other than race-baiting and sex-slandering? Coz if so, I haven't seen any evidence of it.

How frightening it must be to be you.

Race and Racial Issues are very popular right now, Racism elected a President, this presidents supporters try their best to inject it whenever somebody disagrees with this President, Jimmy Carter did it not to long ago it is done right on this forum, Tea Baggers were called Racist because they dared to openly demonstrate against this presidents policy, the fires of Racism are always trying to be lit by the supporters of this president they use it as a weapon.

Going to the polls and voting for a person based on the color of their skin is RACISM, millions of people did it last November and they were proud of it, they still are.

If McCain had won the Screams of "Racism" would still be rolling around the world, So Central LA would have burned to the ground again.