Goddess Posted May 15, 2017 Author Report Posted May 15, 2017 23 hours ago, dialamah said: Why do you think we should wait till people are actually hurt to take this stuff seriously? Yet, this is exactly what you constantly insist Westerners do about Muslim violence, intolerance and bigotry...... 1 Quote "There are two different types of people in the world - those who want to know and those who want to believe." ~~ Friedrich Nietzsche ~~
Argus Posted May 15, 2017 Report Posted May 15, 2017 19 hours ago, Omni said: Except "nerd" is not really what you could call an identifiable community, which is the focus of hate crimes. So what? Violent hate crimes are extremely rare in Canada to begin with. If we want to deter violence we should deter ALL violence. 1 Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted May 15, 2017 Report Posted May 15, 2017 (edited) 19 hours ago, dialamah said: So then your claim that Muslim immigrants are driving some kind of crime wave is wrong. My neighbourhood is about 50% immigrant. The people who engage in petty crime and "harassing/beating" of others is pretty close to 100% white. So you say. And your evidence is what? My evidence for the violence of Muslims in my neck of the woods is the many, many Islamic names among the killers and victims in the drug/gang wars here, as well as all those Islamic people on the wanted lists. Both of which I have previously posted. Edited May 15, 2017 by Argus 1 Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Omni Posted May 15, 2017 Report Posted May 15, 2017 3 minutes ago, Argus said: So what? Violent hate crimes are extremely rare in Canada to begin with. If we want to deter violence we should deter ALL violence. We do. And I would remind you that hate crimes don't have to be violent to qualify. Quote
Bob Macadoo Posted May 15, 2017 Report Posted May 15, 2017 19 hours ago, jbg said: An attack against police is an attack on social order as much as an attack on another person. Exactly. Same as an identified group. 19 hours ago, bcsapper said: Plus, we put them in harm's way for our protection. I'm okay with the police having more protection than me. If indeed, that is what happens. They don't get more protection than you......hate crime legislation is reactionary. Quote
Guest Posted May 15, 2017 Report Posted May 15, 2017 39 minutes ago, Bob Macadoo said: Exactly. Same as an identified group. They don't get more protection than you......hate crime legislation is reactionary. Well, they should. I'd be okay with penalties for crimes against the police actually being greater than those for crimes against me. Quote
Omni Posted May 16, 2017 Report Posted May 16, 2017 19 minutes ago, bcsapper said: Well, they should. I'd be okay with penalties for crimes against the police actually being greater than those for crimes against me. But no added penalties for crimes against specific groups. aren't police specific groups? A little contradiction in your argument, again, it seems. Quote
jbg Posted May 16, 2017 Report Posted May 16, 2017 Just now, Omni said: But no added penalties for crimes against specific groups. aren't police specific groups? A little contradiction in your argument, again, it seems. Attacks on the police though are attacks on all of us, the collective order. Sorry the right to legal violence is monopolized by the Crown and the police. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
Omni Posted May 16, 2017 Report Posted May 16, 2017 1 minute ago, jbg said: Attacks on the police though are attacks on all of us, the collective order. Sorry the right to legal violence is monopolized by the Crown and the police. What "right" to legal violence would that be? Quote
Guest Posted May 16, 2017 Report Posted May 16, 2017 10 minutes ago, Omni said: But no added penalties for crimes against specific groups. aren't police specific groups? A little contradiction in your argument, again, it seems. Only those that deserve it. You never asked about deserves. In the case of the police, "Deserves got something to do with it". Quote
Omni Posted May 16, 2017 Report Posted May 16, 2017 1 minute ago, bcsapper said: Only those that deserve it. You never asked about deserves. In the case of the police, "Deserves got something to do with it". In order for your "deserves" thing to apply to sentencing, it has has to be built into the wording of the law. And that's what is done with hate crimes legislation. Quote
Guest Posted May 16, 2017 Report Posted May 16, 2017 1 minute ago, Omni said: In order for your "deserves" thing to apply to sentencing, it has has to be built into the wording of the law. And that's what is done with hate crimes legislation. I know. With the Police, I agree with it. Quote
Omni Posted May 16, 2017 Report Posted May 16, 2017 44 minutes ago, bcsapper said: I know. With the Police, I agree with it. Good for you. 1 Quote
Argus Posted May 16, 2017 Report Posted May 16, 2017 20 hours ago, Bob Macadoo said: Exactly. Same as an identified group. Has anyone physically attacked a whole 'identifiable group before'? Because an attack on one is not an attack on all of them. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
-TSS- Posted June 1, 2017 Report Posted June 1, 2017 People always talk about human rights but you seldom hear anyone talking about human duties. 1 Quote
peoples advocate Posted October 22, 2017 Report Posted October 22, 2017 On 2017-04-24 at 3:58 PM, bush_cheney2004 said: Not quite...several of the American rights do not apply to Canada (e.g. free speech, firearms), while others are not rights at all even in the United States, just wishful thinking. Citizen rights in the U.S. are inalienable except when restricted by law (e.g. convicted felons), regardless of any collective or individual responsibilities. They still have responsibilities and there is no way around that. As do we all. Quote
-TSS- Posted October 29, 2017 Report Posted October 29, 2017 The only relevant question to would-be citizens is: How much money have you got. Quote
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.