[AF] It's a legacy!

[Glen Kippel]

On 5/5/07, Jerry Mathis <thebeaver32 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Comments embedded below.
>
>
>
> On 5/5/07, Glen Kippel <glen.kippel at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> >>And, if there is such a thing as "hate crime," then what is a "love
> crime?"


>This is a disingenous question designed to confuse the issue.

Not disingenuous at all.  Keep reading.

>>Any crime involves hate, because the perp is not respecting the rights of
the victim.

>This is not what we're talking about, and I think you're intelligent enough
to know it. A burglar probably doesn't even KNOW his victim, and probably
has no malice other than having something the burglar wants to convert to
quick cash. But people are attacked all the time because they have been
identified as homosexual, transexual, or are (obviously) black or disabled.
The question is another attempt to downplay the issue.

You don't have to know someone to demonstrate disrespect, if not hate.  If
everyone followed the maxim, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto
you," then people wouldn't break into other people's houses and steal their
stuff.  You don't have to hit or shoot somebody to hate them.


>>Assigning certain crimes as "hate crimes" and having a harsher punishment
>> does not jibe with "equal protection under the law."  I don't believe
gays
> >should receive less protection than anyone else.  And they (or anyone
>> else) should not receive more.  It's called "equality."

>This reminds me of the line from "1984": "All animals are created equal,
but
>some are more equal than others."

You are confused here.  It's *Animal Farm*, not *1984.  *Both by Orwell,
though, so I can understand how you got them mixed up.

>>What's next -- "thought crime," *a la* *1984*?

>Only in your own mind. I care not a fig if you choose to hate gays, blacks,
>Jews, Mexicans, liberals, or even me. That is your business. Just don't
>physically attack me, slander me, cheat me, discriminate against me, or
>incite others to do so. Is that too much to ask?

I don't intend to do any of the above, nor do I even remotely suggest that
anyone do the same or even anything similar.  But with "hate crime," it is
necessary for the authorities to read somebody's mind to determine what they
were thinking to decide on the level of punishment.  For me, it is enough to
punish the *actions*, not the motivation.  If somebody commits murder, the
"why" is not all that important to me, but if murder of someone from one
group of people receives a greater punishment than another, I cannot support
that at all because it is inequality.  Judge everyone the same.

The problem now, as I see it, is that any dissent or disagreement with the
"politically correct" viewpoint is now called "hate."  That is most
troubling.