The Responsibilities of Citizenship

[OftenWrong]

1 minute ago, bcsapper said:

Oh no, I understand there are differences as you describe.  I'm talking about the same crime. Fit of anger.  Premeditated. You name it. So long as the crime is the same, the punishment should be. I'm that important. 

You're also dead. The punishment is not only to avenge you, it's also to help us carry on now that you're gone. That is what I meant by the "shocks the public conscience" part. Terrorism, or hate crimes are intended to raise fear in groups of people who are not directly involved in the crime, but who are implicitly threatened by it. So this is two crimes.

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

You're also dead. The punishment is not only to avenge you, it's also to help us carry on now that you're gone. That is what I meant by the "shocks the public conscience" part. Terrorism, or hate crimes are intended to raise fear in groups of people who are not directly involved in the crime, but who are implicitly threatened by it. So this is two crimes.

My wife said she would like equal vengeance. 

[OftenWrong]

1 minute ago, bcsapper said:

My wife said she would like equal vengeance. 

Thats not what she told me

[Omni]

1 minute ago, bcsapper said:

My wife said she would like equal vengeance. 

HUH?

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Omni said:

HUH?

WHAT?

 

[Guest]

1 minute ago, OftenWrong said:

Thats not what she told me

I had to tell her to tone it down a bit. 

[OftenWrong]

3 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

I had to tell her to tone it down a bit. 

She deserves it. The way I see it, equal crime deserves equal punishment.
If someone is assaulted because they are Jewish, the perpetrator committed assault and another offence. They don't get a pass for the second offence.

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

She deserves it. The way I see it, equal crime deserves equal punishment.
If someone is assaulted because they are Jewish, the perpetrator committed assault and another offence. They don't get a pass for the second offence.

No they didn't. Assault is a crime. Hating isn't. 

[Omni]

Again it goes to the added harm done to the particular community at large over and above that done to the individual member.

[Omni]

Just now, bcsapper said:

No they didn't. Assault is a crime. Hating isn't. 

You don't seem to get it. You can hate all you want, just don't let your hatred inspire you to commit a crime, or else you get your p p whacked a little harder.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Omni said:

Again it goes to the added harm done to the particular community at large over and above that done to the individual member.

Again, do whatever you want to mitigate the harm. Bring in the death penalty for a good kick to the shins. Just make sure my shins are then equally protected. 

[Omni]

1 minute ago, bcsapper said:

Again, do whatever you want to mitigate the harm. Bring in the death penalty for a good kick to the shins. Just make sure my shins are then equally protected. 

They are equally protected.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Omni said:

They are equally protected.

Were that the case, we would not be arguing. 

[Omni]

Just now, bcsapper said:

Were that the case, we would not be arguing. 

Basically I'm not sure I can make heads or tails out of your post about "your shins".  

[Guest]

Just now, Omni said:

Basically I'm not sure I can make heads or tails out of your post about "your shins".  

So you lied about their protection?  

 

[Omni]

4 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

So you lied about their protection?  

 

Nope. The law offers equal protection for you shins whatever color they may be. As best it can.

[Guest]

Just now, Omni said:

Nope. The law offers equal protection for you shins whatever color they may be. As best it can.

 It should. However, based on your previous comments, I believe its best is not quite good enough. 

[Omni]

Just now, bcsapper said:

 It should. However, based on your previous comments, I believe its best is not quite good enough. 

That has nothing to do with the topic.

[Guest]

Just now, Omni said:

That has nothing to do with the topic.

It has been the topic for two days and about four pages. The law is as you say it is, and an ass. 

[Omni]

3 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

It has been the topic for two days and about four pages. The law is as you say it is, and an ass. 

And after all theat time you don't understand the concept. Sorry, can't spend forever at it. If you don't like the law, talk to your local MP. That's a good place to start.

[Guest]

Just now, Omni said:

And after all theat time you don't understand the concept. Sorry, can't spend forever at it. If you don't like the law, talk to your local MP. That's a good place to start.

I understand the concept. I disagree with the concept.  But you're relieved. 

[Omni]

11 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

I understand the concept. I disagree with the concept.  But you're relieved. 

You seem to think that the concept somehow provides you with less protection, therefore you don't seem to understand it. But I guess it is a somewhat complicated issue.  

[OftenWrong]

9 hours ago, bcsapper said:

No they didn't. Assault is a crime. Hating isn't. 

It's already been demonstrated why it is, an aggravating circumstance. You did not address this other than "No it isn't". I'm not going to repeat the argument.

Edited May 14, 2017 by OftenWrong

[Hydraboss]

On 5/12/2017 at 3:54 PM, Omni said:

What makes you think they don't already provide those stats?

Oh, my mistake then.

Would you please point to the link from the government that shows the percentage of violent crime in Canada committed by, say, Somalis?  I looked and must have missed the report.

How about the crimes committed by white Canadians?  Number of murders by immigrants from the Middle East?  How many Asians have stolen cars?  Thanks for the help.

[Guest]

9 hours ago, Omni said:

You seem to think that the concept somehow provides you with less protection, therefore you don't seem to understand it. But I guess it is a somewhat complicated issue.  

Like I said, circles.  We addressed the protection issue sometime ago.  I believe it was something like, if the laws provide more protection for some, then they provide less for others, and if they don't, why bother?  I'm paraphrasing.  I'm not looking for it.