On reaching a consensus re mass shootings in the U.S.

Another flaw in all of this is that the way "hate" is defined is rarely by the actual "hater" but by people who interpret their "hate" for them (often without their consent).

If I were to suggest that people who dye their hair pink are fools for exposing themselves to chemicals needlessly, I could be labeled as a "hater". Not because I actually hate pink haired people, but because calling them out for their foolishness (if that was how I actually felt about it) would hurt their feelings.

Personally, I don't care what people do to their own bodies, dye your hair, tan your skin like leather, take a dick in your bum, smoke asphalt or gauge your ears so wide they can contain hamster wheels (I'd actually love to see that, better than goldfish in stack shoes). It's ultimately none of my business. Conversely, my opinion is just that, an opinion, not an expression of "hate".

Like it or not, we can't actually regulate people's minds to come around to our own, righteous way of thinking. No matter how much moral high ground we think we command. All we can do is make up ways to "punish" them and put money into the wallets of lawyers.

 

Pink haired people is not a legally protected minority group. That's the difference

 

Such a literalist. Of course we can't eliminate hate or crime. Surely you don't conclude from that that criminalizing certain behavior is futile. Hate crime statutes add enhanced penalties to criminal offenses committed against members of certain groups because of their membership. Examples of such groups include race,ethnicity, gender, religion, sexual orientation, etc. The penalties are added because crimes motivated by hatred of such groups is regarded as detrimental to society. They've been upheld by the Supreme Court Wisconsin v. Mitchell and are widely enforced in the United States. Such laws don't eliminate hate, of course, but they punish it for the same reasons we punish other crimes.: general and special deterrence, incapacitation, norm reinforcement, retribution, etc.

 

Regulating minds is not the objective. Regulating conduct will do. Of course, bigots don't usually see themselves as a problem, but others do--especially those who pass the laws. As the eighteenth century jurist John Austin remarked (and I'll have to paraphrase), you may think these are dumb laws, and you may be right; but if you think they aren't laws, we can prove you wrong by hanging you up by your neck if you break them.

 

And yet, they catch plenty of grief and hate. Can't we find a one size fits all solution (of course not).

 

Right - but hate against a minority group really is a different crime than hate against a single person

 

Indeed, look how many people "hate" Trump. And feel totally justified, even though they never met the man. I guess some kinds of hate are the "good" kind after all.

 

Certainly they're not all equal. Hating Trump, which I personally do, is not the same as the hate that's evident in the white supremecists groups that he empowers and inspires. Their hatred creates a broader environment of fear and incites violence

 

Hate is hate. It's lame in any package.

 

There is no way to regulate hate as an emotion

obviously

A hate crime implies the intent behind a crime. A crime has to actually take place and the motive established in order to be labeled a hate crime

People are free to hate however they like as long as their hate does not motivate them to commit a crime.

 

I like your responses always, Kerri. I think you are one of my most favorite people here.

I can hate whomeverr gives me reason to hate them......it is a freedom to feel any way i want to.......as long as i don't act on it.....in a crime of hate....period.

 

Correct. Punishing someone for a hate crime by adding a more severe penalty and consequence to the crime sounds good with intent. But there are often too many factors to look at before one can determine if the intent of the crime was motivated by hate or not. Sometimes, the people involved get a label of bigotry added to their record that they don't deserve. Such as the officer who shot Michael Brown in self defense.


For that reason I'm against the whole concept of a hate crime as an added penalty.

 

Trump is President of the United State, and as such is in a position to screw up the country and the world. Condoning his actions is consequently far different from condoning the acts of a private individual. I think it's important for people to realize the full magnitude of the disaster they've put in such a power role, and not to gloss over his flaws in a misguided effort to be nice. It's important to recognize that Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot were evil men, even though they were human beings. If Hitler had sold more paintings, or Stalin had gone into the priesthood as originally planned, or Pol Pot had passed his exams at the Lycee Sisowoth their lives might have turned out differently. If we looked carefully at their past, we might find mitigating circumstances. That's for God to judge. I think they're all monsters. I can say with some conviction that I want Trump out of office, but I don't wish him ill in terms of health. nonpolitical misfortune, hellfire and damnation. Hate the sin, love the sinner, I always say, although in the case of the folks I've mentioned, that's very hard to do.. Do you feel love for Hillary? Have you met her? What did she ever do to you? So this sardonic comment about the "good" kind of hate strikes me as more sophistry designed to blow smoke up our asses.

 

We make judgments about intent all the time in criminal trials. The criminal justice system isn't infallible, but hate crimes pose a special danger to the social order and, in my opinion, add to the gravity of the crime.

 

There you, go, Okie. I wanted to say...there sure seems a lot of hate for Hillary and Obama, too still, and i never said i wished trump dead like some said about Hillary.......People feel what they feel and there can be no laws against feeling what one does......or meddling...people have their own reasons to hate someone..........maybe the person they hate has been good to you.....so you do not see it in the same perspective or experience another person the same way they do....They may be smiling up a storm at you and saying all of the right things, yet kicking me under the table where you can't see it happening.......so it is very unfair to assume why I would hate someone......on any personal level....and blame me for it or try an force me to feel a way that i don't feel about something......

I never hate anyone for no reason........and I hate what trump is doing....so therefore I do not like him.

 

The officer who shot Michael Brown wasmt charged with a hate crime.

 

I tend to ignore posts not directed at me especially if they are long. I'm not sure what you're so upset about. MeAgain was the one saying that the behavior of killing multiple random people isn't normal, I'm just agreeing with him.

 

Making places like these hard targets. And while I'm for implementations such bulletproof doors and what not, they aren't as effective as they could be if nobody has the means to take down the shooter. So I advocate SROs and staff willing to be trained and armed.

 

For sure. But one kind affects one person another kind affects tons of people

 

Thank you ;-)