Now that the cameras aren’t there you left the border?

Chris, did you pencil in your calendar for our next VRWC meeting & potluck?

I hear tell the agenda will be to discuss ways we can reduce funding for CBC and other black vote getting and channel the money to 527s. I’m bringing a spam dish and a can of whupbutt. What’re you bringing.

funny how most of the vandalism that takes place in these types of matters is always directed at someone who is conservative or voted for 43. you never much hear about conservatives vandalizing the cars of liberals.

that’s right, we’re too busy plotting our next hate crime to worry about ripping a bumper sticker off of a car.

better yet, we’re too worried about making sure blacks only have 2 voting machines at their precints while we have 10 (according to howard dean).

or, we’re too busy trying to bring back the days of segregation by nominating janice rogers brown to an appelate court position.

i’m wondering when the libs are going to come up with common sense solutions. i like them better when they vandalize and throw verbal bombs like noted above. shows how ideologically bankrupt they really are.

We can stop well short of that. We do right now, for example.

“The degree of nastiness in the mind of the perpetrator is not provable in any meaningful sense”

State of mind is proved everytime someone is convicted of murder.

What you fail to grasp is that adding an enhanced penalty for say, the use of a gun during commission of a felony, is based upon something that has enhanced the danger to the victim during the commission of the act.

Policing thought can only lead us down the road of policing speech, which would curtail this exchange we are now having. One or the other of us would be on the wrong side of the argument and thus be subject to criminal penalty for thinking and/or saying something that the gGvernment finds goes against the mainstream of societal norms.

The whole point is that its not the case when its bias motivated crimes, and it assumes the answer when you say “he’s just as guilty”. Thats what we’re deciding, whether to have an aggravating factor for bias motivation. Just like we have aggravating factors for crimes committed with guns, as part of a gang, as a third strike, etc…

Why? He is just as guilty of the crime regardless of what his motivation is. As I said, the only real value to proving bias is to formulate a motive to increase the probability of conviction. It should not be the basis for another criminal charge that wouldn’t be presented if another motivating factor were to be determined.

I don’t know what you mean by “classroom rhetoric.” It’s just what it is.

“If I get beaten senseless by a brick wielding thug, it makes absolutely no difference what category or class of thug did it, and whatever segregated pigeonhole you assign me to makes absolutely no difference either.”

It really doesn’t matter who the thug is and it really doesn’t matter what I think of you either. What does matter is the bias motivation of the thug.

Let’s try this again. If I get beaten senseless by a brick wielding thug, it makes absolutely no difference what category or class of thug did it, and whatever segregated pigeonhole you assign me to makes absolutely no difference either. I’m still beaten just as senseless, and the thug is still just as guilty, no more and no less, despite whatever law school pedandicisms are attempted here.

I don’t get why you would stop and consider this.

“That would definitely put me into a specific category. Maybe even into a specific class.”

I think you’re still not quite getting this distinction. Sexual orientation is a category. Homosexuality/heterosexualities are two of the classes that that category creates.

Firstly, you obviously have categories in the sense of sexual orientation. Everyone does. Secondly, remember, it doesn’t really matter what you are, but what the assailant thinks.