Keeping it civil instead of returning to our dark ways

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Quick question: Have you said "I DO NOT WANT TO BE KEPT IN A PERSISTENT VEGITIATIVE STATE" within hearing distance of anyone from whom we can take a statement?

Only when I was reading your ass.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Gattigap
You mean you're not confident that the "Lawtalkers.com" tattoo on your unmentionables won't tip them off on where to look?

Me and Shifter thought it would play pretty well, though I have to question Shifter's decision to have it put on his ass. Still, at least it's more sensical than Hank's. Hank, who is "Ruby?"

I'd thought about setting up one of those posthumous e-mail accounts, but I have no idea whether or not they work and the only way to test them out would be to die.

The tattoo is cute, though I'm sort of glad that I can't see it.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic
Wow. I just have no response to that. Except that apparently Hank is right, and "society" still doesn't recognize the treatment of women as subject beings with lesser personal, economic and political protection under the law as wrong.

Yeah, that's exactly what I was saying. If I say that a date rape shouldn't be treated as a hate crime because it's not committed for the purpose of terrifying all women, then I am saying that I don't think it's wrong to treat women as lesser beings. If I say that the history of the KKK, lynchings, and cross-burnings designed to drive black people -- all black people -- out of neighborhoods has no parallel in the United States, because there is no historical example of anyone trying to drive all women out of any neighborhood, then I'm saying that rape is a good thing.

Yup, you figured me out perfectly.

[Sidd Finch]

never mind... duplicate....

[SlaveNoMore]

ilikenewsocks
McGill again?

When you find a good name, you stick with it.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Yeah, that's exactly what I was saying. If I say that a date rape shouldn't be treated as a hate crime because it's not committed for the purpose of terrifying all women, then I am saying that I don't think it's wrong to treat women as lesser beings. If I say that the history of the KKK, lynchings, and cross-burnings designed to drive black people -- all black people -- out of neighborhoods has no parallel in the United States, because there is no historical example of anyone trying to drive all women out of any neighborhood, then I'm saying that rape is a good thing.

Yup, you figured me out perfectly.

I think that date rape is distinguishable from serial rapists who terrify all women in a given community. But you aren't, apparently, seeing that distinction.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
It's obvious that rapists have always treated women wrong, but that utterly misses the point.

Given that rape is, by definition, something that can only involve a female victim, it's pretty strange to say that it should also be charged as a hate crime because it's a crime against a woman.

The fundamental issue in hate crime legislation is whether a crime is directed at an individual or at a group. Rape can be a hate crime when it's directed at terrorizing a group -- or even genocide, as with the rape of Bosnian Muslims. But is a man who commits a date rape motivated by his bias towards all women? It seems that virtually all legislatures who have made a decision on this have taken the view that, no, he is not.

Take a step past the rape- to the rapist who then kills his victim. the crime was committed because of her status- right? You seem to think it fine to make an increased penalty for one type of status motivated crime, but not the other. I don't see why.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
serial

mmmmm Cereal

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Take a step past the rape- to the rapist who then kills his victim. the crime was committed because of her status- right? You seem to think it fine to make an increased penalty for one type of status motivated crime, but not the other. The lines aren't there.

Status of the victim, or bias against the group?

That's the line. I think it's there. A bunch of legislatures seem to agree -- do you think that's because of the enormous influence that blacks and gays have in state capitols?

This all leaves aside the question of whether we should have such laws at all. As I've said, I'm lukewarm about them. But it surprises me, to say the least, that you and BRC claim that the only reason the many legislatures could have for having excluded women from hate crimes are that they are enthralled to the overwhleming political power of blacks and gays, or because they all secretly hate women.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Status of the victim, or bias against the group?

That's the line. I think it's there. A bunch of legislatures seem to agree -- do you think that's because of the enormous influence that blacks and gays have in state capitols?

This all leaves aside the question of whether we should have such laws at all. As I've said, I'm lukewarm about them. But it surprises me, to say the least, that you and BRC claim that the only reason the many legislatures could have for having excluded women from hate crimes are that they are enthralled to the overwhleming political power of blacks and gays, or because they all secretly hate women.

Well, it's not just the one woman the rapist hates (usually), so I don't see that line.

I just question the propriety of such laws, and the fact that the main support for having unequal criminal penalty seems to be political clout in the legislature, certainly doesn't lend itself to supporting the laws.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Well, it's not just the one woman the rapist hates (usually), so I don't see that line.

Not sure I agree, but I don't see much point in that debate. But it seems that you do see the line given your recognition that at least sometimes its not a crime against the group.

I just question the propriety of such laws, and the fact that the main support for having unequal criminal penalty seems to be political clout in the legislature, certainly doesn't lend itself to supporting the laws.

I question the propriety too, but for different reasons.

Do you really think that blacks and gays have "political clout" in state legislatures? In Texas?

[Gattigap]

Oh, how the mighty have fallen.

The Weekly Standard properly takes Bush to task for his (effective lack of a) North Korea policy, and recommends a combination of solutions, including the threat of force.

• (5) Readying the nondiplomatic instruments for North Korea threat reduction. Diplomacy on the North Korean nuclear front may well fail--in which case a variety of nondiplomatic alternatives must be at the ready. Paradoxically, however, preparing for the deliberate use of nonconsensual, non-diplomatic options with North Korea will actually increase the probability of a diplomatic success.

Sigh. It seems like only yesterday that the neocons strode the globe like a colossus, and could say what they meant, and mean what they said! "Nonconsensual, non-diplomatic options"? It's a shame that the good days are apparently gone, because -- let's face it -- nothing really compares to the heft of being able to say "turn Pyongyang into glass."



ETA: Not to say that that the neocons have completely lost their sense of nerve. To resolve those pesky problems with the South Korea government, whose threat from NK is rather more direct? Regime change, of course!

• Instead of appeasing South Korea's appeasers (as our policy to date has attempted to do, albeit clumsily) America should be speaking over their heads directly to the Korean people, building and nurturing the coalitions in South Korean domestic politics that will ultimately bring a prodigal ally back into the fold.

Crosby, Stills and Nash had it right: If you can't love the one you're with, love the one you love! So true.

[Bad_Rich_Chic]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
But it surprises me, to say the least, that you and BRC claim that the only reason the many legislatures could have for having excluded women from hate crimes are ... because they all secretly hate women.

Actually, I think it's because they all secretly think hatred of women isn't as serious as hatred of other groups, and they don't recognize the extent to which historical and continuing discrimination against women fundmentally underlies much of "enlightened" western culture, including their own views of women's treatment in society and whether women are legitimately intimidated by it as women.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic
Actually, I think it's because they all secretly think hatred of women isn't as serious as hatred of other groups, and they don't recognize the extent to which historical and continuing discrimination against women fundmentally underlies much of "enlightened" western culture, including their own views of women's treatment in society and whether women are legitimately intimidated by it as women.

Look, I told you I could get you in. What more do you want?

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic
Actually, I think it's because they all secretly think hatred of women isn't as serious as hatred of other groups, and they don't recognize the extent to which historical and continuing discrimination against women fundmentally underlies much of "enlightened" western culture, including their own views of women's treatment in society and whether women are legitimately intimidated by it as women.

2. Plus I think it's so pervasive that no one really thinks about it much anymore.