Increasing racist attacks on Asians (1 Viewer)

[Farb]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/02/09/attacks-asian-american-elderly-/

I will admit, I didn't know anything about these these strings of attacks and the murder of elderly Asian American out west. Really disturbing. In most cases, they have caught sub human scum that have committed these crimes.
In the case of the murder of Ratanapakdee, I sincerely hope the death penalty will be sought, although that is not possible in the state of CA.

 

[Farb]

Sure it does. Your inability to grasp a simple concept does not mean the concept is wrong.

You mean like boys/men have a penis and girls/women have a vagina? That kind of simple concept?
What concept exactly? That special double laws kick in when a person murders another person because of his skin color? It is still murder and already illegal. Do we take into account if the guy didn't like certain hair color? No, that is just part of the motive itself. Hate crimes are just a way for our unengaged leaders to act like they care when in realty, they are just making sure to keep identity politics stoked, after all, what would be the left's platform if there was no identify politics?
Sorry, I think hate crimes are a stupid virtue signaling byproduct of a lazy and incompetent ruling class.

 

[BullSheetBuddha]

You mean like boys/men have a penis and girls/women have a vagina? That kind of simple concept?
What concept exactly? That special double laws kick in when a person murders another person because of his skin color? It is still murder and already illegal. Do we take into account if the guy didn't like certain hair color? No, that is just part of the motive itself. Hate crimes are just a way for our unengaged leaders to act like they care when in realty, they are just making sure to keep identity politics stoked, after all, what would be the left's platform if there was no identify politics?
Sorry, I think hate crimes are a stupid virtue signaling byproduct of a lazy and incompetent ruling class.

 

[coldseat]

What concept exactly? That special double laws kick in when a person murders another person because of his skin color? It is still murder and already illegal. Do we take into account if the guy didn't like certain hair color? No, that is just part of the motive itself. Hate crimes are just a way for our unengaged leaders to act like they care when in realty, they are just making sure to keep identity politics stoked, after all, what would be the left's platform if there was no identify politics?
Sorry, I think hate crimes are a stupid virtue signaling byproduct of a lazy and incompetent ruling class.

Why are you so invested in protecting racist people that attack innocent people because of their race?

 

[brandon]

That special double laws kick in when a person murders another person because of his skin color?

We're trying to make the point that you've already admitted you're fine with "special double laws" that kick in when a person is a child, but when it's race, you draw the line, which seems an odd place to do so, since both age and race are immutable characteristics.

 

[CoolBrees]

@Farb
I am going to hate myself for asking, but can you expound upon how adding a Federal hate crime to a murder charge is virtue signaling?

Virtue signaling, by definition, means- “the action or practice of publicly expressing opinions or sentiments intended to demonstrate one's good character or the moral correctness of one's position on a particular issue.”

We do this with other types of crimes all of the time. Capitol Murder carries a death sentence for certain egregious murders. Even driving under the influence has a adder for driving with a child in the car.

The hate crime law is showing that there was special motivation for the crime; The victim’s appearance or religion.

To me, and the federal government agrees with me, the special charges are added because not all murders are equal. Not all arson is the same. Some require special treatment to allow for the life long sentences they deserve. Otherwise, the punishments for all crimes would need to include these sentencing mechanisms. E

I am going to stop there because I doubt you will answer with anything other than a non-sequitur, gas lighting or the ever popular “I have a bunch is other stuff I will get back to you”

 

[cuddlemonkey]

You mean like boys/men have a penis and girls/women have a vagina? That kind of simple concept?
What concept exactly? That special double laws kick in when a person murders another person because of his skin color? It is still murder and already illegal. Do we take into account if the guy didn't like certain hair color? No, that is just part of the motive itself. Hate crimes are just a way for our unengaged leaders to act like they care when in realty, they are just making sure to keep identity politics stoked, after all, what would be the left's platform if there was no identify politics?
Sorry, I think hate crimes are a stupid virtue signaling byproduct of a lazy and incompetent ruling class.

You acknowledge that sexual assault should carry harsher punishments when committed against children, even though the age of the victim is part of the motive. Why do you think it's ok for age but not for race?

 

[Farb]

You acknowledge that sexual assault should carry harsher punishments when committed against children, even though the age of the victim is part of the motive. Why do you think it's ok for age but not for race?

Can you explain why they should be treated equal?
Are you saying child is just as capable of defending and thinking for themselves as an adult? Obviously you do, otherwise you would not be going down this odd rabbit hole.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Can you explain why they should be treated equal?
Are you saying child is just as capable of defending and thinking for themselves as an adult? Obviously you do, otherwise you would not be going down this odd rabbit hole.

If you are going to claim that this has anything to do with self-defense ability, you're going to have to justify why crimes committed against a small, asthmatic adult man aren't sentenced more harshly than crimes committed against, say... a strong, healthy martial arts expert.

In fact, I would say that an armed police officer is more capable of self-defense than your average citizen, yet murdering a police officer in the line of duty is an aggravating factor in federal sentencing guidelines. Surely, that shouldn't be the case if self-defense is a factor.

 

[Farb]

If you are going to claim that this has anything to do with self-defense ability, you're going to have to justify why crimes committed against a small, asthmatic adult man aren't sentenced more harshly than crimes committed against, say... a strong, healthy martial arts expert.

In fact, I would say that an armed police officer is more capable of self-defense than your average citizen, yet murdering a police officer in the line of duty is an aggravating factor in federal sentencing guidelines. Surely, that shouldn't be the case if self-defense is a factor.

I am not arguing on psychical or self defense grounds, you keep going back to it. I am arguing defending under the law. A minor cannot enter contracts for example, is that a problem for you too?
Your logic is that since we have laws that are specific to age, then you are ok with laws that are specific to race. Yeah, history tells us that is never a good idea but then again, some of you think that socialism is a good idea too and that has literally never ever worked anywhere in the world.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

I am not arguing on psychical or self defense grounds, you keep going back to it. I am arguing defending under the law.

I see. That was not clear in the context, but I will remember that moving forward.

A minor cannot enter contracts for example, is that a problem for you too?

This has nothing to do with the discussion.

Your logic is that since we have laws that are specific to age, then you are ok with laws that are specific to race. Yeah, history tells us that is never a good idea but then again, some of you think that socialism is a good idea too and that has literally never ever worked anywhere in the world.

How does history tell us that laws protecting marginalized racial groups are a bad idea?

 

[Farb]

I see. That was not clear in the context, but I will remember that moving forward.



This has nothing to do with the discussion.



How does history tell us that laws protecting marginalized racial groups are a bad idea?

It has nothing to do with it? Indeed the age a minor can enter a legally binding contract absolutely does have to deal with laws passed regarding the age of a citizen.

Silly question, but do you think a law 'protecting' a certain group could be used at a later time to control the others? Nazi's did pretty well with that in the late 1920 and early 1930. More recent is the attempt to 'protect' LGTBQ folks but actually could be used for quieting those that don't agree with the minority (see cake bakers).

Now I want to look into this. When laws were created to 'protect' a certain class but ended up aiding in their persecutions and/or enslavement. Thanks, now I have to read more.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

It has nothing to do with it? Indeed the age a minor can enter a legally binding contract absolutely does have to deal with laws passed regarding the age of a citizen.

Correct. This topic has nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

Silly question, but do you think a law 'protecting' a certain group could be used at a later time to control the others? Nazi's did pretty well with that in the late 1920 and early 1930. More recent is the attempt to 'protect' LGTBQ folks but actually could be used for quieting those that don't agree with the minority (see cake bakers).

I didn't say anything about laws that 'protect'. I am talking about genuine protection for marginalized groups. In the bakery example, the laws had to do with equal treatment under the law. It has nothing to do with quieting anyone. Nobody wanted them to stop sharing their views. People wanted them to stop using those views to justify discriminatory behavior. There is a vast difference between those two things.

Now I want to look into this. When laws were created to 'protect' a certain class but ended up aiding in their persecutions and/or enslavement. Thanks, now I have to read more.

You mean you made a statement but had no clue if it was accurate or not? Shocked, I tell you...

 

[Farb]

Correct. This topic has nothing to do with the discussion at hand.



I didn't say anything about laws that 'protect'. I am talking about genuine protection for marginalized groups. In the bakery example, the laws had to do with equal treatment under the law. It has nothing to do with quieting anyone. Nobody wanted them to stop sharing their views. People wanted them to stop using those views to justify discriminatory behavior. There is a vast difference between those two things.



You mean you made a statement but had no clue if it was accurate or not? Shocked, I tell you...

Gotcha, you spend post argueing on age but now, it has nothing to do with it. Even you have to understand that it is hard to take you seriously when you do this, which is often.

Are those groups not protected already under the laws we currently have? Can you share how these 'marginalized' groups are not protected under the law?

I don't think inconvenience is discriminatory. Do you?

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Gotcha, you spend post argueing on age but now, it has nothing to do with it. Even you have to understand that it is hard to take you seriously when you do this, which is often.

The discussion is about increased sentencing guidelines, so the age at which a person can sign a legally binding contract has nothing to do with the discussion.

Are those groups not protected already under the laws we currently have? Can you share how these 'marginalized' groups are not protected under the law?

Children are already protected by the laws we currently have, but you have no problem with increased sentencing guidelines for that particular group of people.

I don't think inconvenience is discriminatory. Do you?

I think there is a world of difference between being inconvenienced because the ATM is broken and being denied a service because the baker is a racist and/or homophobic butt crevasse.

 

[Farb]

The discussion is about increased sentencing guidelines, so the age at which a person can sign a legally binding contract has nothing to do with the discussion.



Children are already protected by the laws we currently have, but you have no problem with increased sentencing guidelines for that particular group of people.



I think there is a world of difference between being inconvenienced because the ATM is broken and being denied a service because the baker is a racist and/or homophobic butt crevasse.

Ok, so you recognize there is difference between age and race/sex. Making progress.

Yes, I want to protect children. I know, I am a dinosaur and old fashioned.

Do you consider getting a specially designed bake good from a particular baker to be a right that needs to protected by law?

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Ok, so you recognize there is difference between age and race/sex. Making progress.

I recognize the difference between someone's age, which is based on time; and race, which is based on genetics. Do you recognize that both of these things are characteristics beyond our control and that they are the motivating factor behind certain crimes?

Yes, I want to protect children. I know, I am a dinosaur and old fashioned.

...

Do you consider getting a specially designed bake good from a particular baker to be a right that needs to protected by law?

It has nothing to do with cakes, specifically. It has everything to do with a business that serves the public electing to not serve a certain segment of the population based on personal beliefs. Do you think there is a problem with this point of view?

 

[Farb]

I recognize the difference between someone's age, which is based on time; and race, which is based on genetics. Do you recognize that both of these things are characteristics beyond our control and that they are the motivating factor behind certain crimes?



...



It has nothing to do with cakes, specifically. It has everything to do with a business that serves the public electing to not serve a certain segment of the population based on personal beliefs. Do you think there is a problem with this point of view?

I am not going to talk in a circle with you. Have fun.
Yes, age and race are what they are. Laws should not make a distinction between adults based on race as the law in 'blind'. Completely different than age and if you can't figure that out in your brain, I cant help you.

No. baking a cake is different than selling cell phones, would you agree?
Would you also agree that a barber might be willing to charge more for a woman's haircut vs. a man's haircut? Makes sense right?
What if the baker would bake the cake but since he can't find inspiration in two dudes getting married, he would have to charge more since it would take up more of his time and mental work, otherwise knows as 'art'?

All that aside, there are other bakers that will bake that cake. Why do they keep going to the same guy? To prove a point or to try and ruin a guy who doesn't believe in what you believe? Silly and causes completely unnecessary push back on both sides that should be a non-issue in a free country.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

I am not going to talk in a circle with you. Have fun.
Yes, age and race are what they are. Laws should not make a distinction between adults based on race as the law in 'blind'. Completely different than age and if you can't figure that out in your brain, I cant help you.

The law is blind except for when you agree that it shouldn't be. Gotcha.

No. baking a cake is different than selling cell phones, would you agree?
Would you also agree that a barber might be willing to charge more for a woman's haircut vs. a man's haircut? Makes sense right?
What if the baker would bake the cake but since he can't find inspiration in two dudes getting married, he would have to charge more since it would take up more of his time and mental work, otherwise knows as 'art'?

Baking a cake is different than selling a cellphone, but we clearly aren't talking about just baking. It is baking a cake specifically to sell to a client. And a store that refuses to sell an iPhone to someone based on their race or sexuality is just as wrong as someone refusing to bake and sell a cake for someone based on their race or sexuality.

A barber charging more for certain services is perfectly fine, much like a baker charging more for a three-tiered wedding cake with elaborate piping work than for a quarter sheet cake with standard icing and no decoration. What does this have to do with intentionally refusing a service to someone based on their sexuality?

All that aside, there are other bakers that will bake that cake. Why do they keep going to the same guy? To prove a point or to try and ruin a guy who doesn't believe in what you believe? Silly and causes completely unnecessary push back on both sides that should be a non-issue in a free country.

This isn't always true. And even if it were, it doesn't matter. The law says that everyone is to be treated equally when it comes to public services and accommodations. Do you agree with the law on this matter?