Forums > Social Discussion > Hate crime legislation. Right or wrong?
Login/Join to Participatemember
190 posts
190 posts
Posted:
What are your opinions on hate crime legislation? It was put on paper to discourage hate crimes, but personally I think it's a shotty piece of legislation, and I don't see how it is justified to give greater penalty for a hate crime then any other crime.
If I beat up a man out of hate because he's black, or gay or jewish etc... why is that any diffrent then beating up a man because I hate him because he's a republican, or likes a sports team I don't like etc etc...
To me, assault is assault. The penalty should depend on the severity of the assault, the degree of pre-meditation etc...
I do agree the hate crime legislation is good when it comes to areas of discrimination, such as work place discrimination.
Another thing that bothers me is the fact that it's a hate crime to write hateful literature about people covered by the hate crime legislation. To me it's outright censorship. Canada recently broadend it's hate crime definition to envelope homosexuals (before it was very vague about how the legislation applied to hate crimes agaisnt homosexuals) and I expect various right wing religious publications to end up in court for writeing about how homosexuality is wrong. Something is wrong when the government can step in and censor religious publications.
Personally I think homosexuals should have inclusion in the legislation just because everyone else does, but it kind of bothers me to see the legislation becomeing larger.
Another issue is hate crimes agaisnt majoritys are rarely charged. For example if I am beaten up by a black man because he hates white men, he will simply be charged with assault most likely (although people have been charged with hate crimes in these instances). Furthermore if I beat up a black man because he beat up my brother for example. Even though my motivation isn't hatred towards black men, there is a very good chance I could be charged with a hate crime and receive more jail time.
What are your opinions on hate crime legislation? It was put on paper to discourage hate crimes, but personally I think it's a shotty piece of legislation, and I don't see how it is justified to give greater penalty for a hate crime then any other crime.
If I beat up a man out of hate because he's black, or gay or jewish etc... why is that any diffrent then beating up a man because I hate him because he's a republican, or likes a sports team I don't like etc etc...
To me, assault is assault. The penalty should depend on the severity of the assault, the degree of pre-meditation etc...
I do agree the hate crime legislation is good when it comes to areas of discrimination, such as work place discrimination.
Another thing that bothers me is the fact that it's a hate crime to write hateful literature about people covered by the hate crime legislation. To me it's outright censorship. Canada recently broadend it's hate crime definition to envelope homosexuals (before it was very vague about how the legislation applied to hate crimes agaisnt homosexuals) and I expect various right wing religious publications to end up in court for writeing about how homosexuality is wrong. Something is wrong when the government can step in and censor religious publications.
Personally I think homosexuals should have inclusion in the legislation just because everyone else does, but it kind of bothers me to see the legislation becomeing larger.
Another issue is hate crimes agaisnt majoritys are rarely charged. For example if I am beaten up by a black man because he hates white men, he will simply be charged with assault most likely (although people have been charged with hate crimes in these instances). Furthermore if I beat up a black man because he beat up my brother for example. Even though my motivation isn't hatred towards black men, there is a very good chance I could be charged with a hate crime and receive more jail time.
GOLD Member
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Posted:
I personally don't think that motive should figure into it. Banning hate isn't going to make hate go away any more than banning drugs is going to make drugs go away. So I don't see a point to those laws.
I personally don't think that motive should figure into it. Banning hate isn't going to make hate go away any more than banning drugs is going to make drugs go away. So I don't see a point to those laws.
-Mike
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella
A buckuht n a hooze! -Valura
member
190 posts
190 posts
Posted:
I'm not sure I want to know...but why should this bother you?
I'm not sure I want to know...but why should this bother you?
Quote:
Censorship. Freedome of speech.Quote:
Not really. Something is definitely wrong when religious publications include content about how homosexuality is wrong in the first place, because homosexuality isn't wrong.
Censorship. Freedome of religion. The bible does say homosexuality is wrong, why should they not be able to write about this? Maybe we should revise it to comply with the law as it's obviously a piece of hate literature.Quote:
Well, if you can prove that you were assaulted by anyone because you are white, beyond reasonable doubt, it shouldn't be a problem. As you say, it's not unheard of.
The jury is already biased agaisnt me, A prosecutor can just spew emotive liberal nonsense to win the trial. A quote of me saying something racist provided by a witness, even if I said it 5 years ago could convict me.Quote:
Quite simply, you would have to prove that you didn't beat the black man because he is black. And if you beat him up because he beats up your brother, the law will obviously not be sympathetic towards you as you should resolve the situation by informing the police, instead of taking it into your own hands.
So, that's one charge, pre-mediated assault with unjust grounds, with a harsh penalty to discourage vigilantism. Not two.
Oh yeah and if the crime is movitated by hate, why can't they give the offender a maximum sentence? Instead of a maximum sentence with another charge ontop of it. This is why we have variable sentencing.
member
190 posts
190 posts
Posted:
also what crime besides those motivated by personal gain or sadistic enjoyment aren't motivated by hate?
Also why is a crime motivated by hate worse then one motivated by personal gain worse?
I find it pretty damn disturbing when someone commits a violent crime for money or personal enjoyment.
also what crime besides those motivated by personal gain or sadistic enjoyment aren't motivated by hate?
Also why is a crime motivated by hate worse then one motivated by personal gain worse?
I find it pretty damn disturbing when someone commits a violent crime for money or personal enjoyment.
member
190 posts
190 posts
Posted:
Also what kind of arguement is "theres something wrong when peole write about homosexuality because homosexuality isn't wrong"
Try this.
Theres something wrong when everyone on this board talks about how the war is wrong, because it isn't wrong. If you talk about how it's wrong I will delete all your posts. No one will delete my posts about talking about why the war is justified, because I am right and I am not being hateful but expressing the truth, from the position of a minority.
Also what kind of arguement is "theres something wrong when peole write about homosexuality because homosexuality isn't wrong"
Try this.
Theres something wrong when everyone on this board talks about how the war is wrong, because it isn't wrong. If you talk about how it's wrong I will delete all your posts. No one will delete my posts about talking about why the war is justified, because I am right and I am not being hateful but expressing the truth, from the position of a minority.
enthusiast
233 posts
233 posts
Posted:
I wonder if it is easy to proove something was a hatecrime. While I know there are the obvious clues, what about in unobvious case? Would an innocent person (innocent of a hate crime) get locked away for a longer period if someone thought it was a hate crime? Or would a guilty person be locked up for a lesser crime?
Personally I agree that assault is assault. There already exist descrimination laws to protect against hate crimes involving work related items. So why need a law to piggy back the current ones.
Perhaps just better clarification is needed.
None the less I applaude any attempt to remove hate. Hate is a dangerous thing, only slightly less dangerous than love.
I wonder if it is easy to proove something was a hatecrime. While I know there are the obvious clues, what about in unobvious case? Would an innocent person (innocent of a hate crime) get locked away for a longer period if someone thought it was a hate crime? Or would a guilty person be locked up for a lesser crime?
Personally I agree that assault is assault. There already exist descrimination laws to protect against hate crimes involving work related items. So why need a law to piggy back the current ones.
Perhaps just better clarification is needed.
None the less I applaude any attempt to remove hate. Hate is a dangerous thing, only slightly less dangerous than love.
BRONZE Member
Insert Champagne Here
13,215 posts
Location: without class distinction, Australia
Insert Champagne Here
13,215 posts
Location: without class distinction, Australia
Posted:
i disagree with hate crimes legislation. i think that even having the legislation is discrimination. beating up a gay is the same as beating up a black guy is the same as beating up a muslim is the same as beating up some random stright white guy with no religion. they should all be treated equally as assault. assult is assult regardless of the motive. and i think that singling out motives as hatred toward a minority group (because lets face it, it really only does apply to minority groups. on the football field how many times are you heard someone reported for calling a guy a "white bastard"?) is in its own way discrimination.
minority groups claim they want to be treated equally - and yet laws like this make it perfectly clear that they are not equal in the eyes of the law! sorry, but to me thats how these laws appear.
its a bit like what my friend was saying about the gay group club thingo at his uni. he was reluctant to join because all they do is whinge and complain about discrimination when they do nothing to stop it except make it worse by claiming things like these hate crimes and that no-one likes them because they are gay; when really people dont like them for their anti social and paranoid behaviour.
(however on saying all this, if someone assaulted my gay friend i would probably want to tear their throat out and call them a homophobic bastard as i fried their liver in oil...its always different when it becomes more personal, isnt it?)
i disagree with hate crimes legislation. i think that even having the legislation is discrimination. beating up a gay is the same as beating up a black guy is the same as beating up a muslim is the same as beating up some random stright white guy with no religion. they should all be treated equally as assault. assult is assult regardless of the motive. and i think that singling out motives as hatred toward a minority group (because lets face it, it really only does apply to minority groups. on the football field how many times are you heard someone reported for calling a guy a "white bastard"?) is in its own way discrimination.
minority groups claim they want to be treated equally - and yet laws like this make it perfectly clear that they are not equal in the eyes of the law! sorry, but to me thats how these laws appear.
its a bit like what my friend was saying about the gay group club thingo at his uni. he was reluctant to join because all they do is whinge and complain about discrimination when they do nothing to stop it except make it worse by claiming things like these hate crimes and that no-one likes them because they are gay; when really people dont like them for their anti social and paranoid behaviour.
(however on saying all this, if someone assaulted my gay friend i would probably want to tear their throat out and call them a homophobic bastard as i fried their liver in oil...its always different when it becomes more personal, isnt it?)
i would have changed ***** to phallus, and claire to petey Petey
Rougie: but that's what I'm doing here
Arnwyn: what letting me adjust myself in your room?..don't you dare quote that on HoP...
GOLD Member
Self-Flagellation Expert
3,414 posts
Location: Bogged at CG, Australia
Self-Flagellation Expert
3,414 posts
Location: Bogged at CG, Australia
Posted:
yeap, personal involvement does make things more complicated. thats why judges are on a fat paycheck, because they need to dissasociate themselves from the personal side of the trials.
(ranty thing)
One issue with discrimination, in particular, labelling/name calling thats always bothered me, is how/why people react the way they do. Im a combination of scots and welsh, born in australia, so im aussie, and kinda scots, kinda welsh. if someone called me a welsh prick, the welsh part is fine. the prick isnt, but thats not the point. likewise, if somone called me an white c
t, im fine with the white part of that. Im proud to be white, scots, welsh, male, agnostic, etc. Why then, if i call somone, for example, a black ct, that its a horrible thing? are they not proud of their race? if i call someone a jewish so-and-so, why does that multiply the nastyness? especially if the insult is directed at the person for them, not for their age, colour, accent, method of upbringing, number of siblings, occupation, whatever, but is purely an adjective? (i think thats the describey word)
(/ranty thing)
yeap, personal involvement does make things more complicated. thats why judges are on a fat paycheck, because they need to dissasociate themselves from the personal side of the trials.
(ranty thing)
One issue with discrimination, in particular, labelling/name calling thats always bothered me, is how/why people react the way they do. Im a combination of scots and welsh, born in australia, so im aussie, and kinda scots, kinda welsh. if someone called me a welsh prick, the welsh part is fine. the prick isnt, but thats not the point. likewise, if somone called me an white c
t, im fine with the white part of that. Im proud to be white, scots, welsh, male, agnostic, etc. Why then, if i call somone, for example, a black ct, that its a horrible thing? are they not proud of their race? if i call someone a jewish so-and-so, why does that multiply the nastyness? especially if the insult is directed at the person for them, not for their age, colour, accent, method of upbringing, number of siblings, occupation, whatever, but is purely an adjective? (i think thats the describey word)(/ranty thing)
"beg beg grovel beg grovel"
"master"
--FSA
"There was an arse there, i couldn't help myself"
--Rougie
BRONZE Member
Classically British
5,689 posts
Location: Epsom, Surrey, England
Classically British
5,689 posts
Location: Epsom, Surrey, England
Posted:
Is this a sarcastic post - or are you just very arrogant?
Ever heard of respecting others opinions?
Sorry - I know this post is
but I just couldn't quite believe reading that bit of it - perhaps I missed something...
Quote:
Theres something wrong when everyone on this board talks about how the war is wrong, because it isn't wrong. If you talk about how it's wrong I will delete all your posts. No one will delete my posts about talking about why the war is justified, because I am right and I am not being hateful but expressing the truth, from the position of a minority.
Is this a sarcastic post - or are you just very arrogant?
Ever heard of respecting others opinions?
Sorry - I know this post is
but I just couldn't quite believe reading that bit of it - perhaps I missed something... Burner of Toast
Spinner of poi
Slacker of enormous magnitude
BRONZE Member
Classically British
5,689 posts
Location: Epsom, Surrey, England
Classically British
5,689 posts
Location: Epsom, Surrey, England
Posted:
Oh - and the war is wrong and unjustified - In my opinion
(Go on - delete this post :P )
Oh - and the war is wrong and unjustified - In my opinion
(Go on - delete this post :P )
Burner of Toast
Spinner of poi
Slacker of enormous magnitude
member
190 posts
190 posts
Posted:
Don't you think she's being arrogant? She passed off homosexuality being wrong as some sort of universal truth, and thinks people shouldn't be allowed to discuss how their religion says it wrong, supported by the biblical text of their religion Im simply doing the same thing with an example that applies to this board.
Just for the record im anti-war.
Sorry, if you want to pull things like that in an arguement im going to call you on it.
Don't you think she's being arrogant? She passed off homosexuality being wrong as some sort of universal truth, and thinks people shouldn't be allowed to discuss how their religion says it wrong, supported by the biblical text of their religion Im simply doing the same thing with an example that applies to this board.
Just for the record im anti-war.
Sorry, if you want to pull things like that in an arguement im going to call you on it.
GOLD Member
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Posted:
According to the Bible it sure is. I've read the OT three times, the NT twice, (and the Q'uran and the Book of Mormon). I have come to the inescapable conclusion that the Bible pretty explicitly bans sodomy. Not homosexuality, per se, but the practice of sodomy. So you can be gay and celibate and that's fine, but "practice" homosexuality and that's not Biblical.
It should certainly be the right of any group to write about how it's wrong to be gay (or to be Asian or to be Jewish or whatever else). After all, freedom is measured by how well a nation tolerates unpopular speech. I will spend a lifetime railing against what these people say, but I will lay down my life to defend their right to say it.
There is a line, of course. Once those publications start talking about harming others, it becomes like screaming "fire!" in a crowded theatre. It becomes harmful speech and that does need to be stopped.
I'm reminded of a rather touching story that made the national news a few years ago. There was a skinhead/White Power rally in some town and, of course, hundreds of counter-protestors turned up.
Well, a white guy with a shaved head and wearing black leather (I never was sure if he was one of the skinheads, since I know many non-skinheads who dress like that) turned up in the middle of the counter-protestors. The crowd turned on him and began to advance. Just as they moved in to beat him up, a young African-American woman flew out of the crowd and tackled the man to the ground, shielding him with her body. She stayed on top of him and told him not to move while yelling at the crowd that if anyone was going to touch this man, they'd have to go through her first.
She didn't know whether that man was a skinhead or not, but she put her life at risk to defend him because she believed in his right to exist and because she was committed to non-violence, even if meant defending her enemy.
And with her heart, she struck a blow to the skinheads ten billion times stronger than any fist could ever strike. Love is the ultimate Weapon of Mass Construction.
Quote:
Not really. Something is definitely wrong when religious publications include content about how homosexuality is wrong in the first place, because homosexuality isn't wrong.
According to the Bible it sure is. I've read the OT three times, the NT twice, (and the Q'uran and the Book of Mormon). I have come to the inescapable conclusion that the Bible pretty explicitly bans sodomy. Not homosexuality, per se, but the practice of sodomy. So you can be gay and celibate and that's fine, but "practice" homosexuality and that's not Biblical.
It should certainly be the right of any group to write about how it's wrong to be gay (or to be Asian or to be Jewish or whatever else). After all, freedom is measured by how well a nation tolerates unpopular speech. I will spend a lifetime railing against what these people say, but I will lay down my life to defend their right to say it.
There is a line, of course. Once those publications start talking about harming others, it becomes like screaming "fire!" in a crowded theatre. It becomes harmful speech and that does need to be stopped.
I'm reminded of a rather touching story that made the national news a few years ago. There was a skinhead/White Power rally in some town and, of course, hundreds of counter-protestors turned up.
Well, a white guy with a shaved head and wearing black leather (I never was sure if he was one of the skinheads, since I know many non-skinheads who dress like that) turned up in the middle of the counter-protestors. The crowd turned on him and began to advance. Just as they moved in to beat him up, a young African-American woman flew out of the crowd and tackled the man to the ground, shielding him with her body. She stayed on top of him and told him not to move while yelling at the crowd that if anyone was going to touch this man, they'd have to go through her first.
She didn't know whether that man was a skinhead or not, but she put her life at risk to defend him because she believed in his right to exist and because she was committed to non-violence, even if meant defending her enemy.
And with her heart, she struck a blow to the skinheads ten billion times stronger than any fist could ever strike. Love is the ultimate Weapon of Mass Construction.
-Mike
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella
A buckuht n a hooze! -Valura
member
190 posts
190 posts
Posted:
that is an amazing story. That girl should be given a medal (im not sure what medals they have to give to civilians for acts like that down there)
also lightning I think it says more then sodomy is wrong, here's some quotes.
Also for the record, im only a 'little' bit christian and more or less a universalist. I believe in elements of trurth from all religions. By quoting these passages im not endorsing them.
that is an amazing story. That girl should be given a medal (im not sure what medals they have to give to civilians for acts like that down there)
also lightning I think it says more then sodomy is wrong, here's some quotes.
Quote:
Lev. 18:22, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."
Quote:
Lev. 20:13, "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them"
Quote:
1 Cor. 6:9-10, "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God."
Quote:
Rom. 1:26-28, "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. 28And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper."
Also for the record, im only a 'little' bit christian and more or less a universalist. I believe in elements of trurth from all religions. By quoting these passages im not endorsing them.
GOLD Member
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Posted:
Robot, there are many more.
That is why, after carefully reading the entire thing 2.5 times, I have decided that I don't believe a word of it.
Robot, there are many more.
That is why, after carefully reading the entire thing 2.5 times, I have decided that I don't believe a word of it.
-Mike
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella
A buckuht n a hooze! -Valura
member
190 posts
190 posts
Posted:
Your insistance that homosexualy isn't wrong as universal truth boarders on idiocy. I wont argue with someone who puts forward nonsense like that. How can you say "we know it's not wrong" when a huge part of the country thinks its wrong?
Your insistance that homosexualy isn't wrong as universal truth boarders on idiocy. I wont argue with someone who puts forward nonsense like that. How can you say "we know it's not wrong" when a huge part of the country thinks its wrong?
member
190 posts
190 posts
Posted:
Im confused by how you think im saying you think it's wrong.
Im confused by how you think im saying you think it's wrong.
member
190 posts
190 posts
Posted:
Sure the inconsistancy with other statements I made would leave you to believe it's a typing mistake. I did reread the thread, and didn't notice the mistake.
Also uh.. gay bashing thread? Right. Im not even going to respond untill you actually read a damn thing I said.
Sure the inconsistancy with other statements I made would leave you to believe it's a typing mistake. I did reread the thread, and didn't notice the mistake.
Also uh.. gay bashing thread? Right. Im not even going to respond untill you actually read a damn thing I said.
SILVER Member
(...trusty steed of the rodeo midget...)
403 posts
Location: the state of flux, Ireland
(...trusty steed of the rodeo midget...)
403 posts
Location: the state of flux, Ireland
Posted:
Post deleted by squarefish
Post deleted by squarefish
GOLD Member
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Posted:
Guys?
Read carefully. If I'm reading correctly, I think that Robotface is saying the exact opposite of what everyone here seems to be thinking.
I see no gay-bashing coming out of it at all, actually. Quite the opposite.
So if I'm right (and I sure hope I am!) then I think some retractions and apologies are probably in order.
Guys?
Read carefully. If I'm reading correctly, I think that Robotface is saying the exact opposite of what everyone here seems to be thinking.
I see no gay-bashing coming out of it at all, actually. Quite the opposite.
So if I'm right (and I sure hope I am!) then I think some retractions and apologies are probably in order.
-Mike
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella
A buckuht n a hooze! -Valura
member
190 posts
190 posts
Posted:
hehe I cant help but laugh at this.
How do you remember to breath?
Quote:Quote:
lightning I think it (the bible -s-) says more then sodomy is wrong, here's some quotes.Quote:
Lev. 18:22, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."Quote:
Lev. 20:13, "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them"Quote:
1 Cor. 6:9-10, "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God."Quote:
Rom. 1:26-28, "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. 28And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper."
Also for the record, im only a 'little' bit christian and more or less a universalist. I believe in elements of trurth from all religions. By quoting these passages im not endorsing them.
Really? that wasn't an example of gay bashing? it sure looked like it from where I stand......
How would it sit with you if I started quoting Mein Kampf or some of the revisionist bullsh*t that gets spread around by the various neo-nazi groups saying that the holocaust was faked by the Jewish peoples?
I could post entire pages that stuff here and at the end have a little disclaimer saying that I didn't believe any of it.
But you can be sure that the moderators and everyone else here would have something to say about my posting it!
hehe I cant help but laugh at this.
How do you remember to breath?
GOLD Member
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Posted:
I also want to say that quoting parts of the Bible that condemn homosexuality does not mean that the person quoting them is a homophobe.
I know this because I routinely quote those very same passages and I sure hope it's quite clear that I'm not a homophobe.
Fact is that the Bible does say these things. I consider them a condemnation of any Biblical religion before I consider them a condemnation of homosexuality.
I also want to say that quoting parts of the Bible that condemn homosexuality does not mean that the person quoting them is a homophobe.
I know this because I routinely quote those very same passages and I sure hope it's quite clear that I'm not a homophobe.
Fact is that the Bible does say these things. I consider them a condemnation of any Biblical religion before I consider them a condemnation of homosexuality.
-Mike
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella
A buckuht n a hooze! -Valura
SILVER Member
(...trusty steed of the rodeo midget...)
403 posts
Location: the state of flux, Ireland
(...trusty steed of the rodeo midget...)
403 posts
Location: the state of flux, Ireland
Posted:
Actually robotface, if you'll check i've deleted the two posts in question.
I re-read the thread, and realised that I had indeed gotten the wrong end of the stick
.
And as for remembering to breath, thats actualy a bit of an effort at the moment, I'm at 4500 meters at the moment (approx 14000 feet) and feeling the effects more than maybe I realised.
So: Mea Culpa,
sorry for the misunderstanding, you caught me on a really bad day.
I'm not going to post any more replies on the boards until my brain adjusts to the height.
Once again,
sorry
Actually robotface, if you'll check i've deleted the two posts in question.
I re-read the thread, and realised that I had indeed gotten the wrong end of the stick
.And as for remembering to breath, thats actualy a bit of an effort at the moment, I'm at 4500 meters at the moment (approx 14000 feet) and feeling the effects more than maybe I realised.
So: Mea Culpa,
sorry for the misunderstanding, you caught me on a really bad day.
I'm not going to post any more replies on the boards until my brain adjusts to the height.
Once again,
sorry
member
190 posts
190 posts
Posted:
hehe it's ok.
How long does it take to boil water there?
hehe it's ok.
How long does it take to boil water there?
SILVER Member
(...trusty steed of the rodeo midget...)
403 posts
Location: the state of flux, Ireland
(...trusty steed of the rodeo midget...)
403 posts
Location: the state of flux, Ireland
Posted:
not very long, just hold the cup between your hands.
altitude sickness sucks
not very long, just hold the cup between your hands.
altitude sickness sucks
member
190 posts
190 posts
Posted:
I would rather not.
I would rather not.
member
190 posts
190 posts
Posted:
actually I am sorry, I was in the middle of an arguement with my mother (on mothers day) when I said I would rather not appologize. Ive been aggresive and disrespectful several times in this thread and im really sorry.
actually I am sorry, I was in the middle of an arguement with my mother (on mothers day) when I said I would rather not appologize. Ive been aggresive and disrespectful several times in this thread and im really sorry.
enthusiast
233 posts
233 posts
Posted:
Can you say off topic?
Went from a debate about hate crimes to the correctness of homosexuality.
It is interesting to see how many people are actually very scared of being told that their life style is wrong, and also being told that someone elses life style is wrong.
So scared in fact that this topic almost came to virtual blows! Then again I have a pretty active imagination, but I swear I could almost see people gettin ready to start swinging at eachother.
If you believe homosexuality is right or wrong, does it really matter? I mean, you either take stock in what the Bible and other religious books say or you dont. Either way, you wont find out the absolute truth untill after you die so live like you will.
My own personal view on homosexuality come from a natural stand point as much as a religious one.
Two homosexual mamals, insects, fish and birds can not breed. They are violating the laws of nature. If you can have faith in nothing else, have faith in that. I honestly dont think there are any homosexuals outside the human species, though it would be interesting to be proven wrong, so this leaves us with one logical conclusion. Since nature has not made any other homsexual creatures, why would humans be differnt?
Homosexuality is a desire. A mental choice.
Can you say off topic?
Went from a debate about hate crimes to the correctness of homosexuality.
It is interesting to see how many people are actually very scared of being told that their life style is wrong, and also being told that someone elses life style is wrong.
So scared in fact that this topic almost came to virtual blows! Then again I have a pretty active imagination, but I swear I could almost see people gettin ready to start swinging at eachother.
If you believe homosexuality is right or wrong, does it really matter? I mean, you either take stock in what the Bible and other religious books say or you dont. Either way, you wont find out the absolute truth untill after you die so live like you will.
My own personal view on homosexuality come from a natural stand point as much as a religious one.
Two homosexual mamals, insects, fish and birds can not breed. They are violating the laws of nature. If you can have faith in nothing else, have faith in that. I honestly dont think there are any homosexuals outside the human species, though it would be interesting to be proven wrong, so this leaves us with one logical conclusion. Since nature has not made any other homsexual creatures, why would humans be differnt?
Homosexuality is a desire. A mental choice.
member
190 posts
190 posts
Posted:
Burz ever use a condom? Sleep with someone on birth control? Masturbate? If so your just as bad as a homosexual.
Burz ever use a condom? Sleep with someone on birth control? Masturbate? If so your just as bad as a homosexual.
enthusiast
233 posts
233 posts
Posted:
Dogs hump odd things... even female dogs (I know that from... experiance ). So, is masterbation really against nature.
But as for the rest of it, it is a choice. So I will agree that per the laws of nature, sex without the intent of conception is wrong.
Edit
Ohh that opens a whole new area of discussion, totally off topic...
If sex without intent of conception is truly agaisnt the laws of nature, whos the guilty party? Both? The person using the contraception? The one on the recieving end for not being a member of the opposite sex? The one giving for not choosing a member of the opposite sex?
Hmm an interesting thing to ponder. Pointless in a way, but interesting none the less.
EDITED_BY: Burzaruka (1084159598)
Dogs hump odd things... even female dogs (I know that from... experiance
). So, is masterbation really against nature. But as for the rest of it, it is a choice. So I will agree that per the laws of nature, sex without the intent of conception is wrong.
Edit
Ohh that opens a whole new area of discussion, totally off topic...
If sex without intent of conception is truly agaisnt the laws of nature, whos the guilty party? Both? The person using the contraception? The one on the recieving end for not being a member of the opposite sex? The one giving for not choosing a member of the opposite sex?
Hmm an interesting thing to ponder. Pointless in a way, but interesting none the less.
EDITED_BY: Burzaruka (1084159598)
GOLD Member
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Posted:
Ok, speaking as a graduate-level molecular biologist:
1) There is no "law" in nature that you have to reproduce. In fact, evolution depends on the fact that not every individual is going to reproduce. Thus, homosexuality violates no law of nature. It simply means we don't reproduce, which is no different than any person with fertility issues. The logical conclusion of your argument is that being infertile violates nature's laws, and is, thus wrong. Frankly, I require three medicines to keep me functional, so I'd just as soon not pass on my genes.
2) In fact, homosexual behavior is observed in many other species at varying frequencies. Dolphins and bonobos are one example. Any cattle rancher can tell you that bulls sometimes mount other bulls (and that some bulls seem to be quite persistent at it and can't be made to mount females). Furthermore, a single-gene mutation in the fruit fly Drosophila melanogaster causes a reversal of sexual behavior, so that males exhibit mating behavior towards other males.
3) I never in my life chose to be gay. On the contrary, if there was a cure, believe me, I would have gone for it a long time ago. I hate being gay. It sucks. I have to fight for my rights. I have to live in fear that the next politician (or this one) is going to try to have me locked up in a camp, or that someone is going to try to pass a law saying that I'm not entitled to medical care. Or that I'm not allowed to be a pediatrician.
Furthermore, because all I ever wanted to do was get married and have kids, I've even had that taken away from me.
And then, I have to deal with ignorance like the kind you just posted.
Why would I ever choose this?
Quote:
Two homosexual mamals, insects, fish and birds can not breed. They are violating the laws of nature. If you can have faith in nothing else, have faith in that. I honestly dont think there are any homosexuals outside the human species, though it would be interesting to be proven wrong
Ok, speaking as a graduate-level molecular biologist:
1) There is no "law" in nature that you have to reproduce. In fact, evolution depends on the fact that not every individual is going to reproduce. Thus, homosexuality violates no law of nature. It simply means we don't reproduce, which is no different than any person with fertility issues. The logical conclusion of your argument is that being infertile violates nature's laws, and is, thus wrong. Frankly, I require three medicines to keep me functional, so I'd just as soon not pass on my genes.
2) In fact, homosexual behavior is observed in many other species at varying frequencies. Dolphins and bonobos are one example. Any cattle rancher can tell you that bulls sometimes mount other bulls (and that some bulls seem to be quite persistent at it and can't be made to mount females). Furthermore, a single-gene mutation in the fruit fly Drosophila melanogaster causes a reversal of sexual behavior, so that males exhibit mating behavior towards other males.
3) I never in my life chose to be gay. On the contrary, if there was a cure, believe me, I would have gone for it a long time ago. I hate being gay. It sucks. I have to fight for my rights. I have to live in fear that the next politician (or this one) is going to try to have me locked up in a camp, or that someone is going to try to pass a law saying that I'm not entitled to medical care. Or that I'm not allowed to be a pediatrician.
Furthermore, because all I ever wanted to do was get married and have kids, I've even had that taken away from me.
And then, I have to deal with ignorance like the kind you just posted.
Why would I ever choose this?
-Mike
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella
A buckuht n a hooze! -Valura
enthusiast
233 posts
233 posts
Posted:
Perhaps my own lack of knowlege prevents me from even understanding what you go through. I don't see how you can not choose to like the member of the opposite sex. I feel that anyone can choose who they are attracted to. Male, female it dosent matter because the idea of what you are attacted to is the same be they ugly or pretty male or female.
I could never sleep with Pam Anderson... I just dont like big breasts, they are actually unattractive to me and in the same light I view men as sexually unatractive. I have seen some good looking guys and some butt ugly ones. Sexual desire remains a choice. I choose not to like large breasts the same as I choose not to like men.
Why do I feel differnt than you?
Perhaps my own lack of knowlege prevents me from even understanding what you go through. I don't see how you can not choose to like the member of the opposite sex. I feel that anyone can choose who they are attracted to. Male, female it dosent matter because the idea of what you are attacted to is the same be they ugly or pretty male or female.
I could never sleep with Pam Anderson... I just dont like big breasts, they are actually unattractive to me and in the same light I view men as sexually unatractive. I have seen some good looking guys and some butt ugly ones. Sexual desire remains a choice. I choose not to like large breasts the same as I choose not to like men.
Why do I feel differnt than you?
Similar Topics
Using the keywords [hate crime legislation right wrong] we found the following existing topics.
- Forums > Hate crime legislation. Right or wrong? [63 replies]
Show more..
© 1998 - 2025 Home of Poi
All prices converted to United States dollars using XE.com