[QUOTE=The Cap;2857936]You can call it something else, but it’s still unconscionable. Although why you’d bother trying to discredit the concept in the first place is beyond sense. Are you upset they didn’t consult you when coming up with the term, or are you challenging the existence of hate crimes?
I’m not sure why I’d even bother asking that. Your post isn’t so much an argument as an angry little fit, so I have a solid guess as to how you want to respond. Feel free to prove me wrong.[/QUOTE]
Angry? You don’t know me as well as you think. I’ve never gotten angry on Bullshido. Angry is the most embarrassing thing you can be on the internet except for a pedophile. Sissies like you see words that hurt your little butthole and you assume they’re words of anger.
[QUOTE=Devil;2857976]Angry? You don’t know me as well as you think. I’ve never gotten angry on Bullshido. Angry is the most embarrassing thing you can be on the internet except for a pedophile. Sissies like you see words that hurt your little butthole and you assume they’re words of anger.[/QUOTE]
Hahaha, I think I called your retort. And maybe you’re not the troll you seem to be, but if you think my butthole’s hurt then you don’t know me either.
[QUOTE=The Cap;2858012]Hahaha, I think I called your retort. And maybe you’re not the troll you seem to be, but if you think my butthole’s hurt then you don’t know me either.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=The Cap;2857936]You can call it something else, but it’s still unconscionable. Although why you’d bother trying to discredit the concept in the first place is beyond sense. Are you upset they didn’t consult you when coming up with the term, or are you challenging the existence of hate crimes?
I’m not sure why I’d even bother asking that. Your post isn’t so much an argument as an angry little fit, so I have a solid guess as to how you want to respond. Feel free to prove me wrong.[/QUOTE]
LOL.
Funny how people scream for freedom of speech and then lose their minds when somebody says the term “hate crime” as a legal remedy is dumb. Also funny is your terrible attempt to conflate unconscionable with legality.
Funny how people scream for freedom of speech and then lose their minds when somebody says the term “hate crime” as a legal remedy is dumb. Also funny is your terrible attempt to conflate unconscionable with legality.[/QUOTE]
Were you trying to answer somebody else’s post when you quoted mine or are you a little confused?
You’re right, that post would be a terrible attempt to conflate amorality with illegality, because that’s not what it’s doing. It’s true, morality and legality don’t always overlap, and many people take the cause of joining the two to heart. That post, however, was too busy asking Devil whether he finds the term “hate crime” stupid or instead the concept of a hate crime stupid to bother addressing your topic. Why did you even bring it up?
Bizarrely, you also mention defending freedom of speech to someone living in one of the rare liberal democracies in the world with a constitutional limitation clause applicable to that right. When have I ever complained about that? Maybe you’re simply taking your favourite strawmen out for a stroll? Or is your post, which quotes mine, actually just alluding to an unnamed third party?
[QUOTE=The Cap;2858245]Maybe you’re simply taking your favourite strawmen out for a stroll?[/QUOTE]Naw, what you described would be a red herring. If you like, since this is MABS, I can remove our last posts so, we can argue about rhetorical devices in another thread? I disagree with what you wrote, but this will further derail Villain’s topic.
[QUOTE=It is Fake;2858259]Naw, what you described would be a red herring. If you like, since this is MABS, I can remove our last posts so, we can argue about rhetorical devices in another thread? I disagree with what you wrote, but this will further derail Villain’s topic.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, okay. I want to hear what you have to say on the subject.
[QUOTE=The Cap;2858264]Yeah, okay. I want to hear what you have to say on the subject.[/QUOTE]I was LOL’ing at your rhetorically sardonic question and posted an ironic response at Devil. Of course Devil is raging against the term “hate crime.” Your exchange, to me, meant your question was rhetorical. So, I only addressed the first two sentences, which sounded serious.
Why did you even bring it up?
When devil talked about legislation, he shifted the conversation to the US legal world of legislating words instead of acts. All states, minus a few, have this type of law and/or enhancement. The ones that do not, have had them struck down pending appeal.
Bizarrely, you also mention defending freedom of speech to someone living in one of the rare liberal democracies in the world with a constitutional limitation clause applicable to that right.
Irony. I find it ironic that hate crime enhancement can and has been issued based on speech alone. I see much irony, not gonna lie I enoy it, in the application of “hate crime” legislation.
When have I ever complained about that? Maybe you’re simply taking your favourite strawmen out for a stroll? Or is your post, which quotes mine, actually just alluding to an unnamed third party?
A strawman would be changing your argument, which I didn’t do. You made a point.
You already get the conflation part. So, I read this:
You can call it something else, but it’s still unconscionable. Although why you’d bother trying to discredit the concept in the first place is beyond sense.
and pretty much ignored the rest because of the level of sarcasm in the post and what followed. You explained your position in t he next part, but the above sounds like conflation.
I appeared because someone reported off topic posts.
I’ve learned a lot on Bullshido. The “it’s not what I meant” factor has made me much more careful in my writing style, not just in posting on Bullshido, but also in personal e-mails or work correspondence. Dialog like this is valuable on several levels. Thank you for it.
[QUOTE=It is Fake;2858394]When devil talked about legislation, he shifted the conversation to the US legal world of legislating words instead of acts. All states, minus a few, have this type of law and/or enhancement. The ones that do not, have had them struck down pending appeal.
Irony. I find it ironic that hate crime enhancement can and has been issued based on speech alone. I see much irony, not gonna lie I enoy it, in the application of “hate crime” legislation.[/QUOTE]
I cannot find any reference to legislation in Devil’s posts in that thread. I think we are reading the same thing and interpreting it differently.
That aside, what do you mean by legislating words instead of acts? As in trying to legislate hate speech? Or do you mean how outwardly similar crimes can have different names and punishments in the same jurisdiction (Like a white on white "assault vs a white on black “hate crime”)? Is that what you mean by a “hate crime enhancement”?
[QUOTE=It is Fake;2858394]A strawman would be changing your argument, which I didn’t do.[/QUOTE]
You are right. When you said “funny how people scream for freedom of speech”, I tied the difference between that and what I’d written to a strawman, but it was more of a red herring.