Time for action

[kjun]

Does anyone know how to identify the act when writing to a Senator? What is the number of the bill?

 

the Cajun

[FinFangFoom]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't there already laws on the books about assaulting people? Why don't we fully enforce the laws we have on the books without creating a new "victim class"?

 

I'm against "hate crime" legislation because it criminalizes thought, speech and feelings. If someone is smashing me on the head with a tire iron it doesn't matter if they're screaming "FAGGOT" while they're doing it or not - the bottom line is they're trying to kill me and they should be put away for trying to kill me whether they were committing "hate speech" or not. Obviously, they're not doing it because they LOVE me!

 

Furthermore, I suspect the legislation would not pass constitutional muster.

 

Unfortunately, a vocal segment of the gay community (and please, let's stop grouping ourselves with guys who want to chop their cocks off and wear bras) loves "playing the victim" and this masturbatory "hate speech" legislation is just another way for them to feel important and special without actually DOING something that earns it.

 

Polemically yours,

 

FFF

[Guest novabear22031]

Thanks for the link to a powerful video. Even without the video, each and everyone one of needs to take a stand and let our Senators know where we stand on this very important issue.

 

It is time to stop allowing a patch work of laws to allow ANY biased related crime to escape final justice.

[Guest novabear22031]

>Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't there already laws on the

>books about assaulting people? Why don't we fully enforce the

>laws we have on the books without creating a new "victim

>class"?

>

>I'm against "hate crime" legislation because it criminalizes

>thought, speech and feelings. If someone is smashing me on the

>head with a tire iron it doesn't matter if they're screaming

>"FAGGOT" while they're doing it or not - the bottom line is

>they're trying to kill me and they should be put away for

>trying to kill me whether they were committing "hate speech"

>or not. Obviously, they're not doing it because they LOVE me!

>

>Furthermore, I suspect the legislation would not pass

>constitutional muster.

>

>Unfortunately, a vocal segment of the gay community (and

>please, let's stop grouping ourselves with guys who want to

>chop their cocks off and wear bras) loves "playing the victim"

>and this masturbatory "hate speech" legislation is just

>another way for them to feel important and special without

>actually DOING something that earns it.

>

>Polemically yours,

>

>FFF

 

 

The point is that the current laws can not provide proper punishment for bias-related crimes as currently allowed for issues based on race and religion. Why should these "groups" be allowed any more protection that for sexual identification?

 

In the end it is that being able to apply the "hate crime" label to these perps - that there is a real sense of justice. It is about the perps facing Federal time for their crime.

 

Perhaps you would like to roll back the clock and not have any hate crime law in effect? To allow the burning of places of worship to carry the same punishment at any other arson? Or perhaps it is OK to kill an inter-racial couple because they chose to mix races. Or to kill an African-American by dragging him tied up behind a pick-up truck, just because of his skin color.

 

Perhaps some thoughts need to be controlled. What a different world we would be in if more stood up to the Nazis in the 30's and 40's.....

[KY_TOP]

I realize this is a political issue but it affects anyone that is Gay or transgendered and I hope more people will see the video link here.

 

Watch the video and then make a call or send an e-mail.

 

 

This video was produced for Cindi Lauper's True Colors Tour

 

Instead of moving this to the political section hopefully someone will pin it here for more to see and hopefully get involved.

[FinFangFoom]

>The point is that the current laws can not provide proper

>punishment for bias-related crimes as currently allowed for

>issues based on race and religion. Why should these "groups"

>be allowed any more protection that for sexual identification?

 

I don't agree with ANY law that "adds" a new layer to what is already a crime. Who gives a shit WHY someone does something? It's irrelevant. If someone atacks someone, there's obviously a reason for it - I don't agree with categorizing motivations. For the victim, the harm is the same whether or not it was done because they were gay, straight, black, Jew, or a supermodel. If you're head is bashed in, it's bashed in regardless.

 

 

 

>In the end it is that being able to apply the "hate crime"

>label to these perps - that there is a real sense of justice.

 

No, it's not "justice" because someone tells a perp that it's a bad thing to say mean things to the person whose head their beating in. What about the person who does it but keeps his big fat mouth shut and doesn't yell "faggot" while doing it? Unless he yells "faggot" you can't prove it's a hate crime. So what you're then doing is criminalizing speech.

 

 

 

>Perhaps you would like to roll back the clock and not have any

>hate crime law in effect? To allow the burning of places of

>worship to carry the same punishment at any other arson?

 

Lemme ask you this: would you be happy knowing that the guy who burned down your house didn't get as much time as the guy who burned down a church? Wouldn't you want "justice"? Wouldn't you want him to get many many many years behind bars - JUST as many as a church burner? I bet you would. So why don't we make it simple and say if you burn something down you get sent away for a looooooooong time and not bother with determining which victim is more deserving of justice?

 

 

 

>perhaps it is OK to kill an inter-racial couple because they

>chose to mix races. Or to kill an African-American by dragging

>him tied up behind a pick-up truck, just because of his skin

>color.

 

 

Now you're being ridiculous and assinine - proving you have no grasp on reality or the nuance of my argument. Let me reassure you that there are laws on the books against murder - I hope you can get a good night's rest.

 

 

 

>Perhaps some thoughts need to be controlled. What a different

>world we would be in if more stood up to the Nazis in the 30's

>and 40's.....

 

More nonsense. The world should have stood up to the Nazi's when they invaded Czechoslovakia and not chosen appeasement rather than taking Hitler out when we should have. If parents can't control what their children think of them, other countries certainly couldn't have controlled the "thoughts" of the Nazis. Your logic is ridiculous.

 

Your point is the problem we're having dealing with Islamofascists. We're trying to win the hearts and minds (aka "thoughts") of these people, when what we need to be doing is slaughtering them. If we had gone in early and slaughtered the Nazis, the world would be a very different place today.

 

You've exhausted me, I'm going to bed.

 

Sleepily yours,

 

FFF

[+ Lucky]

The heading of the thread made me wonder how the subject came to your attention. Time for action? Where have you been? People have been pushing for hate crime legislation for years and much success has been accomplished. Granted, there is always more to be done.

 

San Francisco established its first hate crimes unit years ago! Convincing judges and juries to buy the addded allegation has been a real hassle, though. Judges tend to plea bargain the enhancement away in return for a guilty plea to the underlying charge, and juries think that proving what someone was thinking is too hard beyond a reasonable doubt, and they usually find that they can live with a conviction without the hate crime allegation tacked on.

[MiamiLooker]

>I realize this is a political issue but it affects anyone

>that is Gay or transgendered and I hope more people will see

>the video link here.

>

>Watch the video and then make a call or send an e-mail.

>

>

>

>This video was produced for Cindi Lauper's True Colors Tour

>

>Instead of moving this to the political section hopefully

>someone will pin it here for more to see and hopefully get

>involved.

 

 

You're concerned with an issue based on unwarranted hate, yet, you hire an escort that you became curious about after seeing his posts, one of which is:

 

 

"Do I believe ALL blacks are bad etc? hell no. Do I believe the majority are? Yes.

I will not excuse the actions of many based off the actions of a few. I refuse to ignore reality and shit right in front of our faces because its not PC to do so. Its time you overpriveledged, sheltered misguided and delusional people realized reality.

 

 

Oh god, another tangent. I mean how much proof do you need when a black guy doesnt even want to see fellow blacks?

Gee, I wonder why.

 

Maybe he got tired of risking his health for some others fools mistakes or carelessness.

Maybe he realized welfare doesnt cover HIV/AIDS meds, and decided its not worth the risk.

Maybe he got ripped off one too many times.

Maybe Maybe Maybe."

 

?????

[+ Tom Isern]

As usual, FFF is blowing ideological bullshit out of his ignorant holes. If he knew anything about the history of the law, he would know that—at least since the Middle Ages—jurisprudence in the West has always considered circumstance AND intention. This is nothing new. Furthermore, the proportion between the penalty and the QUALITY of the offence has always been related to the impact the violation has on the social order. Hate crimes legislation is, therefore, not asking for “special” attention, for an extension of the gaze of the law into the previously unexamined and off-limits mind or heart of the criminal, it is only asking that hate be one of the circumstances and intentions that it is legitimate to consider as part of the process. See Michel Foucault "Discipline and Punish" for detailed history and analysis. If FFF would like to live in a part of the world where circumstance and intention are irrelevant to the law, I'd suggest he move to Iran, Saudi Arabia, the Hammas-ruled part of Palestine, OR perhaps Guantanamo!

[FinFangFoom]

>As usual, FFF is blowing ideological bullshit out of his

>ignorant holes. If he knew anything about the history of the

>law, he would know that—at least since the Middle

>Ages

 

There was also slavery in the Middle Ages and whhores like you would have been put to death. Would you like to advocate that?

 

 

You know, maybe I'm getting old but I have less and less patience for late-30's hooker (who still haven't found anything productive to do with their lives) who pretend to be mental giants and like sharing their deep thoughts and throw out names like Michel Foucault - yawn. When, if in fact they were as smart as they pretend to be, they wouldn't still have to be putting up ads on Rentboy to pay the rent for their 5th floor, back of the building, walk-up studio that has dirty dishes in the sink and reeks of a cat.

 

But boy oh boy, they'll put their hand on their hip while they type and tell you what THEY think about the burning issues of the day!

 

Tom, do yourself a favor and go get yourself a life and THEN open your yap. Until then, stop humiliating yourself. At your age, it's not pretty.

 

Helpfully yours,

 

FFF

[KY_TOP]

>The heading of the thread made me wonder how the subject came

>to your attention. Time for action?

 

This purely is because the Hate Crimes Bill has passed the House and is now in the Senate. If no action is taken "NOW" the Senate will again pass over this legislation. So the Time for Action to get the Senate to do their part is now.

[KY_TOP]

Not sure what Escort you are referring to or how his words relate to adding sexual orientation to the Hate Crimes bill. But if he takes a baseball bat to someone's head just because he doesn't like someone's race, then he could be prosecuted under the present Hate Crime legislation.

[Guest novabear22031]

I resisted in responding to what I saw were comments that did not address directly the issues I posted....

 

The closest you came was with this comment:

 

"Lemme ask you this: would you be happy knowing that the guy who burned down your house didn't get as much time as the guy who burned down a church? Wouldn't you want "justice"? Wouldn't you want him to get many many many years behind bars - JUST as many as a church burner? I bet you would. So why don't we make it simple and say if you burn something down you get sent away for a looooooooong time and not bother with determining which victim is more deserving of justice?"

 

But perhaps you may have forgot that under our form of government we are allowed multiple levels of laws - local, state, and federal. Sadly they don not always meet eye to eye with the severity of the crime.

 

Given the lack of uniform punishment, does not a crime based on hate (insert your cause here) deserve added punishment? For in a enlightened society we should be able to see the difference between one that burns a church down for the simple pleasure of burning a church. Versus those that want to burn a church down to invoke terror/fear to those that went to that church.

 

>>As usual, FFF is blowing ideological bullshit out of his

>>ignorant holes. If he knew anything about the history of

>the

>>law, he would know that—at least since the Middle

>>Ages

>

>There was also slavery in the Middle Ages and whhores like you

>would have been put to death. Would you like to advocate

>that?

>

>

>You know, maybe I'm getting old but I have less and less

>patience for late-30's hooker (who still haven't found

>anything productive to do with their lives) who pretend to be

>mental giants and like sharing their deep thoughts and throw

>out names like Michel Foucault - yawn. When, if in fact they

>were as smart as they pretend to be, they wouldn't still have

>to be putting up ads on Rentboy to pay the rent for their 5th

>floor, back of the building, walk-up studio that has dirty

>dishes in the sink and reeks of a cat.

>

>But boy oh boy, they'll put their hand on their hip while they

>type and tell you what THEY think about the burning issues of

>the day!

>

>Tom, do yourself a favor and go get yourself a life and THEN

>open your yap. Until then, stop humiliating yourself. At your

>age, it's not pretty.

>

>Helpfully yours,

>

>FFF

 

While Tom may have been out of line in some of his response to you - you really seemed to have crossed the line IMO. I have met a couple of "late-30's hooker{s} (who still haven't found anything productive to do with their lives)" who have taught me (and could perhaps you) a thing or two about life and could hold a more positive conversation about differing views.

 

My few experiences from those that I have met or conversed here on DR - they are NOT just "flesh peddlers". One showed me how the Tao had influenced my life for so many years. A couple of them were able to share experience in dealing with the everyday business world - in order to make a better life for us all.

 

Yes, there have been a few that are just about "business". And I might connect with them in my travels - haven't so far because I would rather meet guys that I share bond with. Yet I am one of those that would rather "understand/know" the guy I am going to be with.

 

Believe it or not, it is possible to have some sort of long term connection/friendship/relationship/communication with a "rent boy". All it takes is finding those you share something in common with, and perhaps not treating them as just some lay for the night.....

[FinFangFoom]

>Given the lack of uniform punishment, does not a crime based

>on hate (insert your cause here) deserve added punishment? For

>in a enlightened society we should be able to see the

>difference between one that burns a church down for the simple

>pleasure of burning a church. Versus those that want to burn a

>church down to invoke terror/fear to those that went to that

>church.

 

 

The bottom line is: the church was burned down. THAT is the crime. As for people being "terrorized" by it....I don't care how some people "feel" about it. There will be plenty who won't be "terrorized" by it (they'll just be really pissed off) and then there will be those Nervous Civil Liberties Nellies who will get the vapors by seeing their shadows.

 

My position is that a crime is a crime and the reason for it doesn't matter. Unfortunately, we have put laws on the books that created sub-categories of the exact same action and Hate Crime legislation is the fruit of this nonsense. Where will it stop? What happens if there is a sudden rash of hate crimes against super models? Using the logic that gays should be added to Hate Crimes because people attack them, we'll have to add super models as a "protected class". How about people who are 5'8" if people start attacking them? Eventually, EVERYONE will be a covered class and then we'll be back to the original purpose of the law.

 

Do you NOW see my logic?

 

Hate Crime legislation infantilizes society - "Was somebody mean to you and called you names while they were beating you over the head with a tire iron? Well we'll show them, won't we? We'll make it a HATE CRIME to call Mikey names while they're trying to kill you!"

 

Fuck that shit.

 

Faggots need to grow up and say: "We don't need this Hate Crime bullshit. What we're going to do is elect politicians who will write tough laws that apply to everyone and make sure judges are elected and appointed who will enforce them."

 

I loathe whiners and unfortunately the gay communities' loudest voices are a bunch whining pansies. Butch is up girls - you make me want to puke.

 

 

 

>While Tom may have been out of line in some of his response to

>you - you really seemed to have crossed the line IMO. I have

>met a couple of "late-30's hooker{s} (who still haven't found

>anything productive to do with their lives)" who have taught

>me (and could perhaps you) a thing or two about life and could

>hold a more positive conversation about differing views.

 

My point was that if Tom "Mental Midget" Isern were even a scintilla as smart as he thinks he is, at his age, he wouldn't still be having to stick his ass in the air to make a buck.

 

Also, isn't it interesting that someone who is so out, loud and proud about being a hooker doesn't have the guts to put his entire face in this Rentboy profile. Now THERE'S a profile in courage!

 

What a hypocrite.

 

Openly yours,

 

FFF

[N.N.]

>My position is that a crime is a crime and the reason for it

>doesn't matter.

 

You think manslaughter and murder should be the same crime too?

 

 

>Also, isn't it interesting that someone who is so out, loud

>and proud about being a hooker doesn't have the guts to put

>his entire face in this Rentboy profile. Now THERE'S a profile

>in courage!

>

>What a hypocrite.

>

>Openly yours,

>

>FFF

 

FFF, do you hire escorts?

[FinFangFoom]

>You think manslaughter and murder should be the same crime too?

 

Of course not!

 

An example of involuntary manslaughter is the guy who gets drunk, climbs into his car, swerves off the road and unintentionally kills someone on the sidewalk.

 

An example of voluntary manslaughter is the guy who is sober, climbs into his car, sees his wife making out with another man on the sidewalk, stops his car, gets into an argument, a fight ensues and the guys ends up smashing the other guy's head into the sidewalk and killing him.

 

An example of murder is the same person who is sober, climbs into his car, sees his wife making out with another man on the sidewalk, drives to the gun store, buys a rifle, drives back to where his wife and the other guy were, gets out of the car and blows their brains out.

 

 

Voluntarily yours,

 

FFF

[N.N.]

Once again:

 

Fin "openly yours" Fang Foom, do you hire escorts?