VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, [2], 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 01:02:29 06/18/03 Wed
Author: Josh
Subject: Just thought i'd jump in now that everybody's good and damned tired of talking about this...lol. *John, please read this. seriously*
In reply to: John 's message, "Hate Crime Laws" on 10:32:11 06/10/03 Tue

John, for what it's worth, you raised some very valid points. i sincerely appreciate your contribution. i hate that you view your experience here negatively, b/c for the entirety of this board's existence, the people here have treated my often 180 degree different opinions with consideration and respect.

as far as your arguments go, i think you're right. in implementation, hate crime laws exist soley to protect certain designated segments of our population and punish people more severely for violating the rights of individuals in these classifications than other citizens (which goes against the very spirit of our constitution). that being said, i also think Lance is right, in that the current color/gender/orientation-blind laws against the crimes being perpetrated are, for various reasons, going unenforced except in high profile cases where the media has gotten involved. obviously, something has to be done. i'm just not sure yet exactly what that is.

so, in this case, i need both sides to make up my mind!

i need GOOD SOLID ARGUMENTS on BOTH sides, so that when it's time for me to vote, i know who i need to vote for based on where they stand on this issue!

it's maddening, sometimes, being on this board and having to take on every single person. trust me, try being the in house gay republican. this board was started by somebody who (and i don't think i am being unfair in my characterization) is a liberal social activist. the activist friends he's invited here share his opinions. just based on your constitutional argument here, i'm guessing somebody with your libertarian bent would view this paradigm and have absolute fits of anti-government apoplexy. i appreciate and often share this sentiment.

unfortunately, in a debate like this, it is difficult to put on my cap of Randian objectivity. that's the problem w/ theory; it doesn't always translate well to the real world. i think everybody should be left alone, to come up with the value system that fits them, to respect the privacy and liberty of their fellow man. does this always happen? no. sometimes you need a fix b/c the noble experiment is slightly flawed. our bill of rights lays out the individual, unalienable rights of the citizenry, yet, a significant portion of the inhabitants of this country were originally prevented from enjoying them. does that mean that the 13th amendment wasn't necessary, b/c it was redundant? there were already laws to protect the citizens from loss of liberty, so we don't need any more? i would hope you would argue that in this case, the law needed some massaging; it needed to step out of the theory and into the real.

crime and punishment is a tricky thing in this country. from our war on drugs (idiocy) to our war on terrorism (frightening), it's always a constant dance to protect an individual w/o reducing the rights of all the other individuals. in this particular instance, i'm still very uncertain how i feel. it's going to be one of those churchillian "muddling through"s, i would imagine.

be patient, consider where people may be coming from, and whatever you do, PLEASE do not stop trying to educate people on your position. it's a great argument, and defending it against rebuttals will only refine and polish it into something better.

for the rest of y'all, you know i loves ya, and keep fighting the good fight. i don't think john ever in any of his posts meant any offense, and i hope y'all give him the same courtesies you've always extended to me. and the same goes for y'all, too, keep pressing your points; take the rebuttals, consider them, reply to them (based on substance, of course!) and use them to make your own case better.

i really appreciate (most) everyone who contributed to this debate, as, like i said earlier, and am not afraid to proclaim publicly, i'm still making up my mind on where i stand on this one. and if somebody w/ as many opinions on things as i have is still having trouble with this, you KNOW people who have never heard these arguments must be having a devil of a time with it. thank you all who have contributed meaningfully to this discussion for helping people like me carefully consider both sides.

respectfully yours,
Josh

p.s. anyone and everyone feel free to dissect anything in here and fire back if you disagree. i ain't skeered, just don't call me names, coz i'll cry :)

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Post a message:
This forum requires an account to post.
[ Create Account ]
[ Login ]
Forum timezone: GMT-5
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.