Reply With Quote
No I'm not, and you're an idiot.
In a way, that's exactly what I mean. The door is open for that, maybe not right now, but in the not-too distant future when administrative detention is considered a normal feature of government, as in Great Britain.
No I'm not, and you're an idiot.
No -- where did that straw man come from?
There's a difference. I'm fine with changing your morals as you grow through life, and experience change.Discounting God (or God's depending on your religion), morality exists on a personal level, not at a cultural, ethnic or national level. There is no guiding force that can say what is right or wrong, so moral relativism is a fact of life, because as people change, and people's situations change, so do their morals.
But thats just me
Moral relativism is different. It's saying it's ok when party A does something, but completely wrong when party B does the same thing.
For instance, if an American were captured in a foreign country, and accused of terrorism, and said country said they then had the right to indefinitely lock him or her up, even if acquitted, how many Americans would be going out of their mind at the 'injustice' of it all?
Yet, those same ones don't make a peep, or don't care, when we do it. That's moral relativism.
That's too nuanced for D, I'm afraid. Nice take, sam.
Last edited by Winehole23; 07-09-2009 at 10:49 AM.
I've spoken out against hate crimes law in these pages, mostly for being redundant, but also on cons utional principle.
Most of what would be made illegal is already described in law (as being serious crimes and felonies), and the equities should lay in favor of free speech, even for racist assholes.
I understand what you meant the first time. I just struggled with how to convey my point, and failed to address it correctly.
So, to use an example on a personal level, since I believe that people act the same, regardless of political level or scale. When I go in a restaurant and see a toddler causing problems, it aggravates me. I don't like loud noises, and that brat is causing them. However, when I go in a restaurant, if my nephew does pretty much the same thing, I don't care at all. Its a matter of, I'm more accepting to his flaws, because he is mine (and his failure to behave is partially my fault too). Is that morally wrong? I don't know. It is a fact of life though. We are more willing to ignore some flaws in the things closest to us, than in strangers. On a religious basis, thats immoral, but without an overarching moral guidance system, who can say what is actually morally wrong? Essentially, I'm not arguing for or against it. I'm just saying its human behavior and don't expect it to change anytime soon, since its been happening for all eternity.
Remember when Navy snipers took out those Somali pirates?
Not THAT was justice. , those guys didn't even get their Miranda rights read to them.
Heinous crimes usually committed against someone the perp hates, so I agree with you that "hate crime" is redundant.
Picante!
God, you're so trite. Please don't ever change, Darrin.
I'm against criminalizing the intent of crimes in actions separate from the ordinary criminal process for which that intent is already a question.
It's overkill.
I don't think the analogy you drew necessarily involves 'morality'though. I don't think it's immoral for a family to bring a whiny kid into a restaurant... it just annoys me.I understand what you meant the first time
So, to use an example on a personal level, since I believe that people act the same, regardless of political level or scale. When I go in a restaurant and see a toddler causing problems, it aggravates me. I don't like loud noises, and that brat is causing them. However, when I go in a restaurant, if my nephew does pretty much the same thing, I don't care at all. Its a matter of, I'm more accepting to his flaws, because he is mine (and his failure to behave is partially my fault too). Is that morally wrong? I don't know. It is a fact of life though. We are more willing to ignore some flaws in the things closest to us, than in strangers. On a religious basis, thats immoral, but without an overarching moral guidance system, who can say what is actually morally wrong? Essentially, I'm not arguing for or against it. I'm just saying its human behavior and don't expect it to change anytime soon, since its been happening for all eternity.
Certainly, there is a societal morality, just as there is a personal morality we all have.
To me though, even though we MIGHT falter, morality should not change based on whether the criminal is a friend or not, whether the thief is someone you know, or whether the nation invading is yours or another.
Yeah, and I think you'll find most liberals on the board said they were totally fine with that.
I sure was.
What you fail to realize is combat =/= detention.
See, with the sarcasm. When someone says they agree with you, you respond with pointless sarcasm. I begin to see why they so vehemently attack your reasonable posts.
You could have just said something like:
Yep, if its already a crime why do we need two laws to do the job that one law was doing just fine. Just give the original law a broader variety of punishments if it was too constrained to punish a particularly bad crime.
You might find if you did stuff like that, people would be more willing to listen to your reasonable points. And yes, you aren't the only one to blame, winehole and lngrrrrrrr and others, including my self, say stuff that i just look at and say, damn, why are they being ridiculous....
For the record, D, you're thumbs up on administrative detention, right?
I've heard one good defense for hate crime laws.
When a person commits a crime against another, it can be for any number of reasons, but it usually only involves those two.
However, a hate crime can be seen as the criminal sending a message, not just to whoever the crime was perpetrated against, but to that group as a whole.
Again, I don't agree with hate crime laws. I just thought that was the only justification for an 'extra' punishment above what the law details for the crime that seemed even slightly reasonable.
My comment to WH wasn't sarcastic in the least. Open crack, remove panties.
What? I'm eminently reasonable, at all hours of the day.
What are they supposed to do with these people?
Maybe they could let gay couples adopt them.
Darrin found himself mistaken as usual, because he did not notice I agreed with his joke. He probably did not even read it. If he did, he retained nothing, judging by his reply.
DarrinS is a derailler.
Simple question, simple answer. I told you mine. Are you afraid to tell me yours?
Says the current champion of one line responses that say nothing.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
