Hang a white mannequin not a hate crime

You can only believe that if you choose to ignore facts and history.

 

The history doesnt make the white woman any less important.

 

Who said it did? But if one is reasonable and considers history and facts then the meaning is most definitely different. You can have the same action and have different meanings based on who it is directed at.

 

The response should be the same regardless of who it is or what color they are. That is what is reasonable.

 

I beg to differ, white women never hung from trees like fruit. Now agree we should change these rules in this changed society but there is definitely a difference.

 

A white woman is not any less equal that a black woman in any situation regardless of history.

 

Again, I guess it depends on where you're standing.

 

don't you think the issue is 'hate crimes' and they've just declared hate crimes against whites do not exist. especially white women. some people are protected even from others right to free speech, like blacks, muslims and homosexuals, but not white women.

 

True. On the one hand some are standing on logic the other on racial grounds.

 

Or the current laws.

 

somehow your defending hanging a white woman, as if the stupid laws make it alright in your opinion. wrong is always wrong, no matter what the laws say.

 

No, because a manger scene is considered to be "religion", which is offensive to the government and other atheists.

 

Nor against Christianity. It's open season on Christianity. To say anything against any other religion is a hate crime, but you can say anything you want against Christians.

 

Although something that is a crime in one state might not be in another, anything said against a "minority" is considered a hate crime pretty much anywhere.

 

Personally, I DON'T see the difference. That's saying there is a double standard that should be recognized. If one is wrong, then BOTH should be wrong, or else NEITHER should be wrong.

 

Free speech isn't for everyone--certainly not for white people or for Christians.

 

you got that right

 

Hence the fallacy of "hate crimes."

Hate crimes are a judicial train wreck because...

1. They elevate the life of one person (be it black, gay, handicapped, left-handed, white, whatever) over another. Generally, the "empowered" party is worth less than the "powerless."
2. They are essentially crimes of thought, which cannot be proven. We can only prove crimes of action...and if we'd enforce the laws already there, we wouldn't have to crawl around inside someone's brain, looking for prejudices.
3. They are unequally enforced. In Alabama, you will never see a black-on-white crime listed as a "hate crime." The reverse is not true. I am for equal justice under the law. A white man who kills a black man should be penalized the same as if the race of the victim/perp were reversed.
4. They clog up the justice system needlessly. If someone's on trial for life, why try separate the hate-crime separately?
5. They begin erosion of rights: now instances of offensive speech is considered "hate crime." If you preach against homosexuality, get ready...you're next.
6. They are, at their core, unneccessary. If you gave people who murdered, for instance, the death penalty, no hate crime legislation would be needed. If you castrated rapists, that would just about do it right there.
7. It is a logical fallacy. Who ever commits "love crimes?" All crime comes from hate.


Having said all that...I should have read more closely regarding the other criminal behavior of the two guys and the Obama thing. There were some criminal elements, apparently.

 

I said there is a difference. I never said it wasn't hateful or a bad thing to do, I simply said there is a difference. I am sure the family wouldn't see the difference to include myself in your above example, however, there is still a difference even if I don't see it.