A devoted father with a zest for life, he was given an indeterminate sentence in 2006. He is still locked up – and losing hope that he will ever be released
You completely ignored my point. We shouldn’t build a society where anyone can assault strangers on the streets because they perceive they might hold socially regressive views. Because that society would be one effectively void of rule of law.
Anyone who disagrees or dislikes someone else could violently attack them then claim they said something offensive.
This system could even enable racism. For example an Asian man (who is prejudiced against Latinos) could bash and Latino he saw then claim they called him a slur to justify their racial violence. Should an KKK member be able to fatality batter and black man he hears says a slur?
If we are playing the logic game this facially fails. And not that the burden for disproving your hypothesis with statistics would fall on me when you’ve yet to back it with any yourself.
Do you really think Hitler wouldn’t have started WW2 if someone had punched him in the face? Would that have actually changed anything?
You still keep ignoring the biggest point here, who dictates who is a racist and deserves punishment? If someone thinks that you’re prejudiced against them then is it fine for that person to punch you in the face?
Reread my earlier comment. I take issue with public violence between members of a society as a means of social change.
This logic works well until someone stumbles along with the opinion that QuantumSpecter is a racist bigot and a clenched fist.
Yes he punched for being a racist bigot.
My point was that the fundamental error in that perspective was that it assumes that violence would be applied against exclusively the targeted group. And that while you typed your original comment you hadn’t considered that because different people have different perspectives, someone might construe something you due as bigoted (even possibly at no fault of your own).
The problems in this idea pop up way before we get to address whether it’d even work.
And even if this was my point
No your point was that racist bigot should be prosecuted
Why do you take issue with that in the context now of hate crimes?
This logic works well until someone stumbles along with the opinion that QuantumSpecter is a racist bigot and a clenched fist.
Okay let’s play the logic game
What’s the statical information on racist/bigot reoffending?
You completely ignored my point. We shouldn’t build a society where anyone can assault strangers on the streets because they perceive they might hold socially regressive views. Because that society would be one effectively void of rule of law.
Anyone who disagrees or dislikes someone else could violently attack them then claim they said something offensive.
This system could even enable racism. For example an Asian man (who is prejudiced against Latinos) could bash and Latino he saw then claim they called him a slur to justify their racial violence. Should an KKK member be able to fatality batter and black man he hears says a slur?
If we are playing the logic game this facially fails. And not that the burden for disproving your hypothesis with statistics would fall on me when you’ve yet to back it with any yourself.
No your point was that racist bigot should be prosecuted, so come on let’s hear the stats on hate crime reoffending?
Do you really think Hitler wouldn’t have started WW2 if someone had punched him in the face? Would that have actually changed anything?
You still keep ignoring the biggest point here, who dictates who is a racist and deserves punishment? If someone thinks that you’re prejudiced against them then is it fine for that person to punch you in the face?
Reread my earlier comment. I take issue with public violence between members of a society as a means of social change.
My point was that the fundamental error in that perspective was that it assumes that violence would be applied against exclusively the targeted group. And that while you typed your original comment you hadn’t considered that because different people have different perspectives, someone might construe something you due as bigoted (even possibly at no fault of your own).
The problems in this idea pop up way before we get to address whether it’d even work.
And even if this was my point
Why do you take issue with that in the context now of hate crimes?