We all were hun... except me. :wink:
-
Maine Senate Passes Same-sex Marriage Bill
-
Originally Posted By: StephieJAsk Eddie about that one. I was a teenager full of attitude!!! hehe.. the "fighting" we had was UGLY! hehe but I am just glad we were able to work through it and both come out better people
-
Quote:no need for laws against thinking...that's rediculous. In a crime, the motive is separate from the action...it is the action that warrants a result (or consequence). If hate stopped at only the thoughts that would be great, but it's the actions results from the thoughts that cause the issues.
-
I think i won the award for bitchiest teenager here. lol. we should have a poll:|Im glad Ive matured and am no longer a brat.
-
I'm glad you're glad. Too many folks these days wear words like "brat" as if it's some kind of badge of honor.
-
But these aren't laws against thinking. They're laws against killing, slandering, whatevering another person, because they're different from you. What about all the people openly admit they committed the crime out of hate for a certain type of person? They get the same punishment as someone who did it just cuz they wanted to. This, I think, is also looking to further that punishment.
And again, it's not just on sexual preference. Let me do a little math here....3 orientations, roughly (estimate) 15-20 different major religions in the US, and probably (estimate) 10 different races. Now let's see....factorial this....permutate that....
If you take one factor from each of those, there's over 30000 (32736 to be exact) different combos you can make. Now multiply that till you get the number of US residents...that's who's protected should there be a crime of hate committed, and straight, christian, and [your race, I don't really know] are included in that.
Gosh, isn't math fun? :scream\_cat: -
Hatred is a thought...and without that thought, it could not be called a "hate-crime". So while they are not laws strictly against thinking, they ARE laws that increase the potential punishment for have certain thoughts...not for anything you've actually done; just for what you thought. Again...it's really just an excuse to create a protected class of people...folks that will have more rights than the average citizen.
-
Originally Posted By: thor
they ARE laws that increase the potential punishment for have certain thoughts...not for anything you've actually done; just for what you thought.
That is not true. People can always think what they want... it's acting on those thoughts and hurting someone that makes it a true hate-crime.
Also Hate is not just a thought (in my opinion) hate is also the action that follows the thought.
-
Originally Posted By: thor Originally Posted By: bobalicious Originally Posted By: thorHowever, the history of the torture and murder of Christians (by athiests) is just beginning. Reference please? Review all your own posts for the past couple of years. I asked you to give references. What have my posts got to do with it? Have I admitted to murdering or torturing Christians?
-
Quote:That is not true. People can always think what they want... it's acting on those thoughts and hurting someone that makes it a true hate-crime.Also Hate is not just a thought (in my opinion) hate is also the action that follows the thought. Now isn't that essentially what I just said? Gosh! It's like he doesn't read!
-
I could of sworn you did...oh! I found it.... http://www.afraidtoask.com/f.......
-
Originally Posted By: bobalicious Originally Posted By: thor Originally Posted By: bobalicious Originally Posted By: thorHowever, the history of the torture and murder of Christians (by athiests) is just beginning. Reference please? Review all your own posts for the past couple of years. I asked you to give references. What have my posts got to do with it? Have I admitted to murdering or torturing Christians? If you can't do me the courtesy of actually reading my posts well enough to understand what I said, and why no further reference is needed, then I won't be answering your questions on it any longer. I think that's fair.
-
Originally Posted By: Rad Originally Posted By: thorHatred is a thought...and without that thought, it could not be called a "hate-crime". So while they are not laws strictly against thinking, they ARE laws that increase the potential punishment for have certain thoughts...not for anything you've actually done; just for what you thought. Again...it's really just an excuse to create a protected class of people...folks that will have more rights than the average citizen. It's an attempt to give folks equal rights, not special rights.Hmmm...let's see what it's really about. Oh...and don't miss the opinion poll there: 'Hate crimes' a bogus argument for raising funds Quote:How would you like it if people set out to purposely hunt down and murder only people in your particular cult? And how, exactly, would this bill prevent that from happening?
-
Yeah, you show me who the 11760 people were, then maybe I'll consider the poll. Until then, *thbttp*.
And those laws would prevent that, by making people think, "oh hey, maybe 20 years in jail isn't worth killing this guy over his religion for."
^^Example.But for the most part, I agree with you, on some level, which I'm not entirely sure of, and I see where you're coming from.
-
Quote:
If you can't do me the courtesy of actually reading my posts well enough to understand what I said, and why no further reference is needed, then I won't be answering your questions on it any longer. I think that's fair.
Fair? You have more or less accused a member of this site of torture and murder. He has asked you to explain, and you think you can refuse?I have read all of Bob's posts and your posts over the years, and I see no justification for what you said. I'm sure you see no justification either, or you would point to it. You made a stupid rhetorical statement, have been called to account for it, and where you should have apologised, your pride has kept you in trouble.
I suggest you tell Bob that you do not believe he is a torturer or murderer.
-
Did you all really read that as a direct accusation towards bob? I didn't. I read it as a general statment of the attitude (of athiests) towards Christians which bob has posted about.
-
Although I personally didn't take it as an accusation of my murderous history, I failed to recollect any murderous remarks that I've ever made.Not to mention that he has (yet again) failed to actually give me an example of the rise of the atheist killing sprees.
-
Originally Posted By: thorIf you can't do me the courtesy of actually reading my posts well enough to understand what I said, and why no further reference is needed, then I won't be answering your questions on it any longer. I think that's fair.How about you actually provide the courtesy of explaining what you mean? Everybody here has repeatedly broken down their own posts to make their points clear for you, to avoid any confusion or misunderstanding. Of course you are not obliged to do so, but doesn't it make it a little more worthwhile for your points to actually be understood? Without clarifying your points, you might as well just be chanting "No, no, no, no, no..."
-
_Although I personally didn't take it as an accusation of my murderous history, I failed to recollect any murderous remarks that I've ever made.
Not to mention that he has (yet again) failed to actually give me an example of the rise of the atheist killing sprees. _
Quote:
the history of the torture and murder of Christians (by athiests) is just beginning.
Again I read it differently. "the history... is just beginning"... meaning it hasn't happened yet. He is predicting the persecution of Christians in the future.
-
Well to say that its just beginning must imply that it has atleast started.