For instance, a young black man is walking home one night, and gets beaten up by two white lads on their way home from the Pub, for no apparent reason
other than being in the wrong place at the wrong time. The two offenders are caught, taken to Court, and prosecuted. Quite right too. There's no excuse for this type of behaviour. However, if during the assault, the black man was called a nigger, or some other term of racial abuse, or if there is any indication that the attack was racially motivated, then it becomes a "Hate crime", and is viewed in quite a different light. My point is, why should there have to be a distinction between the original assault, and
one that is racially motivated? Surely whatever the motivation is behind it, the Law should be sufficient to deal with the offenders? After all, the black man was just as assaulted, whatever the motivation was. The addition of "Hate Crime" categorisations implies that the Law is insufficient to deal with current offences, and needs changing.
And it doesn't. If anything, it needs to be implemented with more across the board consistency.
I'm not saying that attacking someone on the basis of their race isn't a heinous thing to do, it quite obviously is. But so is attacking someone on the basis of being too drunk to show any self control.
If, in Court, someone says, as a reason for their Crime, "I did it because they were black" or "I did it because they were gay", and the Court accepts that this in some way mitigates the Crime, then it is clearly the Judiciary that is at fault, not the existing Laws that are in place to deal with such crimes.
Also, more Police resources are allocated to anything that might be called a Hate Crime. So if two assaults of similar severity are committed at the same time, and one of them is deemed to fit the Hate Crime profile, guess which one gets investigated, and which one gets put on the back burner?
An assault is an assault. The motivation behind it does not make any one incident worse than another, or any better than another.
It doesn't make the assault any less serious. Especially to the victim. And the sudden appearence of so many "Hate Crimes" in the Media, just makes people more afraid.
So is HateCrime a new phenomena? Or just a Political move to justify giving the Police more powers? Shouldn't the Police treat all crime with the same level of efficiency?
Or should they be allowed to pick and choose whichever ones make them look better in the eyes of the current Political climate? What do you think?
Funny thing about moral issues is that nobody notices them until somebody points them out.
I hypothesize that there are just as many as there always were, but, like a new word that you keep hearing, we're just noticing them more now that it's widely recognized as a problem.
An assault is one thing, but an assault with the specific intent of oppressing a minority is the same kind of crime that killed roughly 50 million people in the 20th century.
So, expect stigmas. There has to be a proportionate backlash to that sort of thing, and we haven't even made a dent yet.
If im not mistaken, "Hate Crime" is a category that began to exist in the early 80's?
I dont know the reason of its origins, but, researching it i could imagine this category of crime was pushed and legislated by people of color.
I personally feel infurated when people are targeted because of just belonging to a minority, but im not sure that its worth more punishment than the act on itself deserves. I mean, if its a "Hate Crime" murder, or just a plain murder, its still despisable murder.
Now, playing devil's advocate against myself, this measure could had been in place to do negative incentive to provide more protection for minorities?
It is simple. Bigotry has perpetrated greater crimes against humanity than anything before it, and it is evil by any definition, and it must be quashed forever, so that the world can exist, perhaps only a while at best, without it. Enough is enough.
What differentiates one assault from another? Motivation. Getting sloppy drunk and beating up some poor fuck who just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time is bad. Seeking out somebody to beat the bejeezus out of them is worse. Beating the living tar out of someone for being different... well, that's tricky, that is. Compare: getting shitfaced and killing someone in a car accident and intentionally running over someone with your vehicle and killing them. Which is worse? Now, which is worse: intentionally killing someone because they pissed you off, or intentionally killing someone because they are different?
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on October 21, 2010, 03:14:32 AM
Now, playing devil's advocate against myself, this measure could had been in place to do negative incentive to provide more protection for minorities?
Seems likely. I am unsure whether it is the case or not, however.
Quote from: Sigmatic on October 21, 2010, 03:19:38 AM
It is simple. Bigotry has perpetrated greater crimes against humanity than anything before it, and it is evil by any definition, and it must be quashed forever, so that the world can exist, perhaps only a while at best, without it. Enough is enough.
You seem to be under the impression that Bigotry will ever end. People will still be finding stupid reasons to hate/kill each other long after you and me have passed.
Quote from: Phox on October 21, 2010, 03:20:30 AM
What differentiates one assault from another? Motivation. Getting sloppy drunk and beating up some poor fuck who just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time is bad. Seeking out somebody to beat the bejeezus out of them is worse. Beating the living tar out of someone for being different... well, that's tricky, that is. Compare: getting shitfaced and killing someone in a car accident and intentionally running over someone with your vehicle and killing them. Which is worse? Now, which is worse: intentionally killing someone because they pissed you off, or intentionally killing someone because they are different?
The Law already distinguishes here, one is "Causing death by drunken driving" the other, "Murder".
Killing someone because they pissed you off, is still the same Crime as killing someone for being different. If being different pisses the Murderer off.
I'm not saying that we should ease off on fighting bigotry at all. Just that classing some crimes as hatecrimes, isn't going to make any difference.
How about if half a dozen citizens went out one night and beat a child molestor to death? Is that a hatecrime?
Quote from: BadBeast on October 21, 2010, 03:35:17 AM
Quote from: Phox on October 21, 2010, 03:20:30 AM
What differentiates one assault from another? Motivation. Getting sloppy drunk and beating up some poor fuck who just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time is bad. Seeking out somebody to beat the bejeezus out of them is worse. Beating the living tar out of someone for being different... well, that's tricky, that is. Compare: getting shitfaced and killing someone in a car accident and intentionally running over someone with your vehicle and killing them. Which is worse? Now, which is worse: intentionally killing someone because they pissed you off, or intentionally killing someone because they are different?
The Law already distinguishes here, one is "Causing death by drunken driving" the other, "Murder".
Killing someone because they pissed you off, is still the same Crime as killing someone for being different. If being different pisses the Murderer off.
I'm not saying that we should ease off on fighting bigotry at all. Just that classing some crimes as hatecrimes, isn't going to make any difference.
How about if half a dozen citizens went out one night and beat a child molestor to death? Is that a hatecrime?
Is the "child molestor" category something you are born into?
Quote from: Lord Glittersnatch on October 21, 2010, 03:25:14 AM
Quote from: Sigmatic on October 21, 2010, 03:19:38 AM
It is simple. Bigotry has perpetrated greater crimes against humanity than anything before it, and it is evil by any definition, and it must be quashed forever, so that the world can exist, perhaps only a while at best, without it. Enough is enough.
You seem to be under the impression that Bigotry will ever end. People will still be finding stupid reasons to hate/kill each other long after you and me have passed.
Apathy, much?
If you are born into a crapsack world, the best you can do is not be a crapsack person.
I'm not saying you are, but I am saying that apathy makes it easier for evil shit to keep happening.
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on October 21, 2010, 03:43:31 AM
Quote from: BadBeast on October 21, 2010, 03:35:17 AM
Quote from: Phox on October 21, 2010, 03:20:30 AM
What differentiates one assault from another? Motivation. Getting sloppy drunk and beating up some poor fuck who just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time is bad. Seeking out somebody to beat the bejeezus out of them is worse. Beating the living tar out of someone for being different... well, that's tricky, that is. Compare: getting shitfaced and killing someone in a car accident and intentionally running over someone with your vehicle and killing them. Which is worse? Now, which is worse: intentionally killing someone because they pissed you off, or intentionally killing someone because they are different?
The Law already distinguishes here, one is "Causing death by drunken driving" the other, "Murder".
Killing someone because they pissed you off, is still the same Crime as killing someone for being different. If being different pisses the Murderer off.
I'm not saying that we should ease off on fighting bigotry at all. Just that classing some crimes as hatecrimes, isn't going to make any difference.
How about if half a dozen citizens went out one night and beat a child molestor to death? Is that a hatecrime?
Is the "child molestor" category something you are born into?
Not sure. Does it matter?
It can't work like that, even if it would in theory, because we have the duty and prerogative of punishing such behaviors.
It would be simple assault, because until pedophilia's neurological origins are isolated and treatable, it's just fucked people ruining kids' lives.
Quote from: Sigmatic on October 21, 2010, 03:59:48 AM
It can't work like that, even if it would in theory, because we have the duty and prerogative of punishing such behaviors.
It would be simple assault, because until pedophilia's neurological origins are isolated and treatable, it's just fucked people ruining kids' lives.
But whatever the cause of wrongcockedness, would beating someone to death on that basis, be a hatecrime?
Is beating someone to death because of their autism a hate crime?
I think so, but only because I can kind of tolerate them, usually, mostly.
Quote from: BadBeast on October 21, 2010, 03:35:17 AM
Quote from: Phox on October 21, 2010, 03:20:30 AM
What differentiates one assault from another? Motivation. Getting sloppy drunk and beating up some poor fuck who just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time is bad. Seeking out somebody to beat the bejeezus out of them is worse. Beating the living tar out of someone for being different... well, that's tricky, that is. Compare: getting shitfaced and killing someone in a car accident and intentionally running over someone with your vehicle and killing them. Which is worse? Now, which is worse: intentionally killing someone because they pissed you off, or intentionally killing someone because they are different?
The Law already distinguishes here, one is "Causing death by drunken driving" the other, "Murder".
Killing someone because they pissed you off, is still the same Crime as killing someone for being different. If being different pisses the Murderer off.
I'm not saying that we should ease off on fighting bigotry at all. Just that classing some crimes as hatecrimes, isn't going to make any difference.
How about if half a dozen citizens went out one night and beat a child molestor to death? Is that a hatecrime?
I didn't make it clear, but let's ignore all laws for the moment. You and I are making the laws. So, answer my questions from that perspective.
Quote from: Sigmatic on October 21, 2010, 04:07:58 AM
Is beating someone to death because of their autism a hate crime?
I think so, but only because I can kind of tolerate them, usually, mostly.
Just to play the devils advocate here:
What your saying is its a hate crime if its done to someone who I tolerate but its not if its done to someone I hate.
Quote from: BadBeast on October 21, 2010, 03:56:50 AM
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on October 21, 2010, 03:43:31 AM
Quote from: BadBeast on October 21, 2010, 03:35:17 AM
Quote from: Phox on October 21, 2010, 03:20:30 AM
What differentiates one assault from another? Motivation. Getting sloppy drunk and beating up some poor fuck who just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time is bad. Seeking out somebody to beat the bejeezus out of them is worse. Beating the living tar out of someone for being different... well, that's tricky, that is. Compare: getting shitfaced and killing someone in a car accident and intentionally running over someone with your vehicle and killing them. Which is worse? Now, which is worse: intentionally killing someone because they pissed you off, or intentionally killing someone because they are different?
The Law already distinguishes here, one is "Causing death by drunken driving" the other, "Murder".
Killing someone because they pissed you off, is still the same Crime as killing someone for being different. If being different pisses the Murderer off.
I'm not saying that we should ease off on fighting bigotry at all. Just that classing some crimes as hatecrimes, isn't going to make any difference.
How about if half a dozen citizens went out one night and beat a child molestor to death? Is that a hatecrime?
Is the "child molestor" category something you are born into?
Not sure. Does it matter?
Yes, it does matter.
Child molestors have a choice in doing a crime, or not doing a crime.
Being of a race or having a sexual inclination is not a choice. Nor a crime.
Actually there IS research nowadays that calls the whole "choice" thing into question. It is a mental illness with exaggerated social impacts, but until we can prevent it, it doesn't make sense to treat them as blameless victims.
Quote from: Phox on October 21, 2010, 04:09:24 AM
Quote from: BadBeast on October 21, 2010, 03:35:17 AM
Quote from: Phox on October 21, 2010, 03:20:30 AM
What differentiates one assault from another? Motivation. Getting sloppy drunk and beating up some poor fuck who just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time is bad. Seeking out somebody to beat the bejeezus out of them is worse. Beating the living tar out of someone for being different... well, that's tricky, that is. Compare: getting shitfaced and killing someone in a car accident and intentionally running over someone with your vehicle and killing them. Which is worse? Now, which is worse: intentionally killing someone because they pissed you off, or intentionally killing someone because they are different?
The Law already distinguishes here, one is "Causing death by drunken driving" the other, "Murder".
Killing someone because they pissed you off, is still the same Crime as killing someone for being different. If being different pisses the Murderer off.
I'm not saying that we should ease off on fighting bigotry at all. Just that classing some crimes as hatecrimes, isn't going to make any difference.
How about if half a dozen citizens went out one night and beat a child molestor to death? Is that a hatecrime?
I didn't make it clear, but let's ignore all laws for the moment. You and I are making the laws. So, answer my questions from that perspective.
Ok, here goes.
1/ What differentiates one assault from another? Motivation.
2/Getting shitfaced and killing someone in a car accident, and intentionally running over someone with your vehicle and killing them. Which is worse?
3/which is worse: intentionally killing someone because they pissed you off, or intentionally killing someone because they are different?
1/ I'd say severity was more relevent than motivation.
2/Actually, I'd say that getting drunk and killing someone by accident was worse. It's sloppy, and needless. If (sober) I were to run someone over, with the intention of killing them, then you can be pretty sure that person deserved it.
3/ Intentionally killing someone because they were different would be worse. Killing someone because they pissed me off, would mean that the person had really really pissed me off, and I'd thought about how to respond. If killing them was the answer I came up with, then they must have deserved it.
Quote from: Sigmatic on October 21, 2010, 04:14:38 AM
Actually there IS research nowadays that calls the whole "choice" thing into question. It is a mental illness with exaggerated social impacts, but until we can prevent it, it doesn't make sense to treat them as blameless victims.
If one does not treat their anti-social impulses to hurt innocent people, then by all means i consider it their fault.
I understand that people that lived thru sexual abuse in their childhood get these impulses, and they cant change that, but at some point it is their resposibility to do something about it, namely, therapy.
The causes of Paedophilia, in relation to this topic, are irrelevent. Would it be a hate crime to beat the fucker to death?
Or just a simple case of Murder, with mitigating circumstances?
You are missing what im saying for some reason.
Child molestors is a category you belong to when you molest childs.
Being Gay is a category you belong to when you form your sexual identity, apparently at two years of age.
Being of a race is a category you are born into.
Each category "membership" is derived from different facts.
Is this more understandable?
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on October 21, 2010, 04:26:52 AM
You are missing what im saying for some reason.
Child molestors is a category you belong to when you molest childs.
Being Gay is a category you belong to when you form your sexual identity, apparently at two years of age.
Being of a race is a category you are born into.
Each category "membership" is derived from different facts.
Is this more understandable?
Not really. You seem to be labouring under the misconception that any of the above reasons are relevent. People generally hate child molestors. So if a group of people beat someone to death, on the basis that they were a child molestor, (and they hated child molestors) would it be a hatecrime?
It's not difficult to understand the question is it?
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on October 21, 2010, 04:26:52 AM
You are missing what im saying for some reason.
Child molestors is a category you belong to when you molest childs.
Being Gay is a category you belong to when you form your sexual identity, apparently at two years of age.
Being of a race is a category you are born into.
Each category "membership" is derived from different facts.
Is this more understandable?
Based on your criteria bigotry based on religion would not be a hate crime since you are not born into a religion but rather actively choose to associate with it.
I've already answered. No it wouldn't. It would be assault.
And Joh'nyx, most people ARE born into their religions. People raised within a religious framework, with no pressure to renounce their faith, will rarely do so.
SO FAR
this thread rules
Quote from: BadBeast on October 21, 2010, 04:32:52 AM
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on October 21, 2010, 04:26:52 AM
You are missing what im saying for some reason.
Child molestors is a category you belong to when you molest childs.
Being Gay is a category you belong to when you form your sexual identity, apparently at two years of age.
Being of a race is a category you are born into.
Each category "membership" is derived from different facts.
Is this more understandable?
Not really. You seem to be labouring under the misconception that any of the above reasons are relevent. People generally hate child molestors. So if a group of people beat someone to death, on the basis that they were a child molestor, (and they hated child molestors) would it be a hatecrime?
It's not difficult to understand the question is it?
No, killing a child molestor isnt a hate crime, because child molestors arent part of a minority that deserves extra-deterrent to be protected.
Quote from: Sigmatic on October 21, 2010, 04:40:45 AM
I've already answered. No it wouldn't. It would be assault.
And Joh'nyx, most people ARE born into their religions. People raised within a religious framework, with no pressure to renounce their faith, will rarely do so.
Well, actually, it would be murder.
Quote from: Sigmatic on October 21, 2010, 04:40:45 AM
I've already answered. No it wouldn't. It would be assault.
And Joh'nyx, most people ARE born into their religions. People raised within a religious framework, with no pressure to renounce their faith, will rarely do so.
Just because they dont doesnt mean they dont have the ability to. They are actively choosing to belong to their faith.
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on October 21, 2010, 04:47:32 AM
Quote from: BadBeast on October 21, 2010, 04:32:52 AM
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on October 21, 2010, 04:26:52 AM
You are missing what im saying for some reason.
Child molestors is a category you belong to when you molest childs.
Being Gay is a category you belong to when you form your sexual identity, apparently at two years of age.
Being of a race is a category you are born into.
Each category "membership" is derived from different facts.
Is this more understandable?
Not really. You seem to be labouring under the misconception that any of the above reasons are relevent. People generally hate child molestors. So if a group of people beat someone to death, on the basis that they were a child molestor, (and they hated child molestors) would it be a hatecrime?
It's not difficult to understand the question is it?
No, killing a child molestor isnt a hate crime, because child molestors arent part of a minority that deserves extra-deterrent to be protected.
And what is the criteria by which we decide who 'deserves' special treatment?
Quote from: Lord Glittersnatch on October 21, 2010, 04:49:58 AM
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on October 21, 2010, 04:47:32 AM
Quote from: BadBeast on October 21, 2010, 04:32:52 AM
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on October 21, 2010, 04:26:52 AM
You are missing what im saying for some reason.
Child molestors is a category you belong to when you molest childs.
Being Gay is a category you belong to when you form your sexual identity, apparently at two years of age.
Being of a race is a category you are born into.
Each category "membership" is derived from different facts.
Is this more understandable?
Not really. You seem to be labouring under the misconception that any of the above reasons are relevent. People generally hate child molestors. So if a group of people beat someone to death, on the basis that they were a child molestor, (and they hated child molestors) would it be a hatecrime?
It's not difficult to understand the question is it?
No, killing a child molestor isnt a hate crime, because child molestors arent part of a minority that deserves extra-deterrent to be protected.
And what is the criteria by which we decide who 'deserves' special treatment?
Minorities.
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on October 21, 2010, 04:47:32 AM
Quote from: BadBeast on October 21, 2010, 04:32:52 AM
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on October 21, 2010, 04:26:52 AM
You are missing what im saying for some reason.
Child molestors is a category you belong to when you molest childs.
Being Gay is a category you belong to when you form your sexual identity, apparently at two years of age.
Being of a race is a category you are born into.
Each category "membership" is derived from different facts.
Is this more understandable?
Not really. You seem to be labouring under the misconception that any of the above reasons are relevent. People generally hate child molestors. So if a group of people beat someone to death, on the basis that they were a child molestor, (and they hated child molestors) would it be a hatecrime?
It's not difficult to understand the question is it?
No, killing a child molestor isnt a hate crime, because child molestors arent part of a minority that deserves extra-deterrent to be protected.
So by your criteria, some minorities do not deserve the full protection of the Law? That in itself, could be classed as "Hatespeech". Which is a Hatecrime. Just sayin'.
Child molestors are not a minority.
In the colloquial sense of the word i see what you mean, but its the "minority group" definition i mean.
Since badbeast brought it up:
At what point do hate crime laws become hate speech laws?
If we decided that 'hate' within itself is something that must be punished would it not logically follow that 'hate' speech would be banned?
Quote from: Lord Glittersnatch on October 21, 2010, 04:57:08 AM
Since badbeast brought it up:
At what point do hate crime laws become hate speech laws?
If we decided that 'hate' within itself is something that must be punished would it not logically follow that 'hate' speech would be banned?
That's what I was getting at in the original post! Legislation that decrees something as a "Hatecrime" isn't Legislating against our right not to be hated. It's Legislating against people's right to hate. And that is unrealistic, unfeasable, and confusing. There's lots of things that I hate. Should I be punished for this alone? No. Only on my actions. So any crime I commit, that is motivated by hatred, should be dealt with on it's severity as a crime, not on whether or not I was motivated by hate. Or any other fucking reason for that matter. Each crime is legislated for already. Motivation doesn't legally justify any crime.
I see hate crimes in the same category as terrorism. (I know, just hear me out though.) The purpose of a hate crime isn't just to assault a particular person. It is meant to send a message to everyone else in the victim's group that they are not welcome. It's not just an ordinary crime, it is a political act meant to intimidate a minority whether it be burning a cross or picking up someone at a gay bar and beating him to death. It is a crime against a group, not an individual.
Killing up a child molester would not count under this model since (I'm assuming) he doesn't hang around other child molester.
Quote from: Iason Ouabache on October 21, 2010, 05:19:34 AM
I see hate crimes in the same category as terrorism. (I know, just hear me out though.) The purpose of a hate crime isn't just to assault a particular person. It is meant to send a message to everyone else in the victim's group that they are not welcome. It's not just an ordinary crime, it is a political act meant to intimidate a minority whether it be burning a cross or picking up someone at a gay bar and beating him to death. It is a crime against a group, not an individual.
Killing up a child molester would not count under this model since (I'm assuming) he doesn't hang around other child molester.
Excellent points, and the only ones ITT that are making me think more about the nature of hatecrimes.
reading from your original point. i think you would have to decide if those two lads would have left a white person alone and only instigated a fight because of race. if that is the case then it would consitute a hate crime, which i think is entirely different to just a fight because you are pissed.
Quote from: slothrop23 on October 21, 2010, 10:01:19 PM
reading from your original point. i think you would have to decide if those two lads would have left a white person alone and only instigated a fight because of race. if that is the case then it would consitute a hate crime, which i think is entirely different to just a fight because you are pissed.
I did actually make the distinction between an assault such as the one you are describing, and the same assault, but where the black man was called a nigger during the attack. The point being, that in the latter scenario, the attack would be seen as a hatecrime.
Quote from: Iason Ouabache on October 21, 2010, 05:19:34 AM
I see hate crimes in the same category as terrorism. (I know, just hear me out though.) The purpose of a hate crime isn't just to assault a particular person. It is meant to send a message to everyone else in the victim's group that they are not welcome. It's not just an ordinary crime, it is a political act meant to intimidate a minority whether it be burning a cross or picking up someone at a gay bar and beating him to death. It is a crime against a group, not an individual.
Killing up a child molester would not count under this model since (I'm assuming) he doesn't hang around other child molester.
I generally agree with this post, but I don't think "hate crime" is the right name. Trying to intimidate someone with violence or threats of violence is it's own crime (I think, IANAL.) So rather than saying "Hate Crime," I'd rather see the charge of "Intimidation" thrown in. So instead of the charge being "Assault" with a "Hate Crime" modifier, I'd rather see "Assault with intent to intimidate" or whatever.
I just think it's a little thoughtcrime-ish to have a criminal stand trial for not just the crime he committed but for also being a racist. The courtroom isn't the place to tease out whether a defendant hates a certain group, fears them, dislikes them, or just likes using words like "nigger" or "fag" when he beats someone up.
re: the child molester question, what if the victim is not known to be a child molester, but just a member of NAMBLA? Assaulting a NAMBLA member because you believe that being a NAMBLA member means you molest children seems like it should fall under the category of assaulting a homosexual because you believe that homosexuals all molest children.
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on October 22, 2010, 02:05:49 AM
Quote from: Iason Ouabache on October 21, 2010, 05:19:34 AM
I see hate crimes in the same category as terrorism. (I know, just hear me out though.) The purpose of a hate crime isn't just to assault a particular person. It is meant to send a message to everyone else in the victim's group that they are not welcome. It's not just an ordinary crime, it is a political act meant to intimidate a minority whether it be burning a cross or picking up someone at a gay bar and beating him to death. It is a crime against a group, not an individual.
Killing up a child molester would not count under this model since (I'm assuming) he doesn't hang around other child molester.
I generally agree with this post, but I don't think "hate crime" is the right name. Trying to intimidate someone with violence or threats of violence is it's own crime (I think, IANAL.) So rather than saying "Hate Crime," I'd rather see the charge of "Intimidation" thrown in. So instead of the charge being "Assault" with a "Hate Crime" modifier, I'd rather see "Assault with intent to intimidate" or whatever.
I just think it's a little thoughtcrime-ish to have a criminal stand trial for not just the crime he committed but for also being a racist. The courtroom isn't the place to tease out whether a defendant hates a certain group, fears them, dislikes them, or just likes using words like "nigger" or "fag" when he beats someone up.
re: the child molester question, what if the victim is not known to be a child molester, but just a member of NAMBLA? Assaulting a NAMBLA member because you believe that being a NAMBLA member means you molest children seems like it should fall under the category of assaulting a homosexual because you believe that homosexuals all molest children.
This I agree with.
And sorry for knocking out early last night and not commenting today. I've been busy. But back to the my theoretical place. BB, I was assuming that all other things being equal, motivation differentiates it. Though to be perfectly honest, on average, "hatecrime" assaults tend to be more severe than random acts of violence.
I just took a big hate crime. :)
Quote from: Mistress Freeky, HRN on October 22, 2010, 04:20:15 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 22, 2010, 04:15:03 AM
I just took a big hate crime. :)
Do you mean EPIC POOMP?
I savagely assaulted the toilet bowl, and then wrote all over it with a sharpie.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 22, 2010, 04:21:14 AM
Quote from: Mistress Freeky, HRN on October 22, 2010, 04:20:15 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 22, 2010, 04:15:03 AM
I just took a big hate crime. :)
Do you mean EPIC POOMP?
I savagely assaulted the toilet bowl, and then wrote all over it with a sharpie.
You're a bad person, why do you gotta hate on toilets like that? THEY'RE PEOPLE TOO!
Quote from: Mistress Freeky, HRN on October 22, 2010, 04:22:36 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 22, 2010, 04:21:14 AM
Quote from: Mistress Freeky, HRN on October 22, 2010, 04:20:15 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 22, 2010, 04:15:03 AM
I just took a big hate crime. :)
Do you mean EPIC POOMP?
I savagely assaulted the toilet bowl, and then wrote all over it with a sharpie.
You're a bad person, why do you gotta hate on toilets like that? THEY'RE PEOPLE TOO!
He does it because he resents the bowl taking his babies away.
It makes him go nice.
"Oh beloved child of my bowel, why? why float away? Don't you love Daddy Dok?"
was reportedly written on one toilet bowl in Tuscon, in dayglo sharpie markers.
Quote from: Horrendous Foreign Liam Stoat on October 22, 2010, 01:48:17 PM
just to be a prick, the first recorded use of the term 'hate crime' in legal records was 1922.
Yeah, we all really hate crime!
Quote from: Triple Zero on October 22, 2010, 10:12:29 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 22, 2010, 04:21:14 AM
Quote from: Mistress Freeky, HRN on October 22, 2010, 04:20:15 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 22, 2010, 04:15:03 AM
I just took a big hate crime. :)
Do you mean EPIC POOMP?
I savagely assaulted the toilet bowl, and then wrote all over it with a sharpie.
Was it SMUDGY?
Afterward? Yeah.
'Motivation doesn't legally justify any crime.'
No but it decides the level of punishment.
Making a plan vs random act
Quote from: Pēleus on October 25, 2010, 11:46:00 PM
'Motivation doesn't legally justify any crime.'
No but it decides the level of punishment.
Making a plan vs random act
While motivation doesn't legally justify any crime, it can define it. eg When making the distinction between Manslaughter, and Murder. It can also mitigate a punishment, after guilt has been established. But if a crime is committed, that has factors that elevate it to a hatecrime, then the Law implemented in it's prosecution should be re-written, and properly defined, to avoid confusion when charging someone. Also to distinguish it from a "strong dislike" crime, many of which might get mistaken for hatecrime. But I think it might end up with the Courts having to prove a that a person was, indeed motivated by hate. Which means that "Hatred" would have to be quantified and defined, Legally. Which could be tricky.
Things like sexual harassment and terrorism aren't as tricky? How about minors who engage in sexting being labeled a pedo.
Quote from: Pēleus on October 26, 2010, 12:53:44 AM
Things like sexual harassment and terrorism aren't as tricky? How about minors who engage in sexting being labeled a pedo.
I agree, they can be tricky, but how about someone charged with sexual harrassment, on the grounds of them being a misogynist? Is that a hatecrime?
Terrorism aimed at a specific racial group or minoritiy, is pretty cut and dried as Terrorist groups tend to state their motives and aims. And minors sexting minors isn't even prosecutable over here. But labelling them as Paedos does seem a little extreme. I don't think we even have sexting as an offence over here. Obviously, if sustained and unsolicited against a particular person, it would be prosecutable under existing harrassment Laws. But if minors are getting labelled as paedos for this? That just illustrates how careful you have to be when Legislating.
Quote from: Pēleus on October 26, 2010, 12:53:44 AM
Things like sexual harassment and terrorism aren't as tricky? How about minors who engage in sexting being labeled a pedo.
The American people have been demanding shit like this since 1980. Now they have it, and they're all outraged when DA's do what the law now says they have to do.
I for one am for hate crime laws. The only way to get people to stop doing something is to make it hurt very bad, much worse than it would benefit them to do so. Or give them a shiny distraction. Either way.
Quote from: Kai on October 26, 2010, 03:36:34 AM
I for one am for hate crime laws. The only way to get people to stop doing something is to make it hurt very bad, much worse than it would benefit them to do so. Or give them a shiny distraction. Either way.
I just think it's funny to stick an extra ten years on a pinhead's sentence.
Dok,
Petty, sometimes.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 26, 2010, 03:37:43 AM
Quote from: Kai on October 26, 2010, 03:36:34 AM
I for one am for hate crime laws. The only way to get people to stop doing something is to make it hurt very bad, much worse than it would benefit them to do so. Or give them a shiny distraction. Either way.
I just think it's funny to stick an extra ten years on a pinhead's sentence.
Dok,
Petty, sometimes.
I have to admit, it is satisfying to see assholes get kicked in the balls.
Quote from: Kai on October 26, 2010, 03:39:24 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 26, 2010, 03:37:43 AM
Quote from: Kai on October 26, 2010, 03:36:34 AM
I for one am for hate crime laws. The only way to get people to stop doing something is to make it hurt very bad, much worse than it would benefit them to do so. Or give them a shiny distraction. Either way.
I just think it's funny to stick an extra ten years on a pinhead's sentence.
Dok,
Petty, sometimes.
I have to admit, it is satisfying to see assholes get kicked in the balls.
Given absolute power, I am unsure whether or not I would enforce hate legislation.
But as a spectator, I enjoy the fuck out of it.
I know there's some sticky moral problems with that stance, but I'm okay with that.
Quote from: Kai on October 26, 2010, 03:36:34 AM
I for one am for hate crime laws. The only way to get people to stop doing something is to make it hurt very bad, much worse than it would benefit them to do so. Or give them a shiny distraction. Either way.
I think I probably agree with you. You can't Legislate against people having rancid points of view, but you can Legislate against people acting out on that shit. My only concern is that it will add to the general paranoia the Media like to bombard people with, in order to distort the worldview of the more suggestable into disproportionate levels of fear.
Quote from: BadBeast on October 26, 2010, 03:44:02 AM
Quote from: Kai on October 26, 2010, 03:36:34 AM
I for one am for hate crime laws. The only way to get people to stop doing something is to make it hurt very bad, much worse than it would benefit them to do so. Or give them a shiny distraction. Either way.
I think I probably agree with you. You can't Legislate against people having rancid points of view, but you can Legislate against people acting out on that shit. My only concern is that it will add to the general paranoia the Media like to bombard people with, in order to distort the worldview of the more suggestable into disproportionate levels of fear.
They're going to be afraid, anyway.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 26, 2010, 03:52:11 AM
Quote from: BadBeast on October 26, 2010, 03:44:02 AM
Quote from: Kai on October 26, 2010, 03:36:34 AM
I for one am for hate crime laws. The only way to get people to stop doing something is to make it hurt very bad, much worse than it would benefit them to do so. Or give them a shiny distraction. Either way.
I think I probably agree with you. You can't Legislate against people having rancid points of view, but you can Legislate against people acting out on that shit. My only concern is that it will add to the general paranoia the Media like to bombard people with, in order to distort the worldview of the more suggestable into disproportionate levels of fear.
They're going to be afraid, anyway.
True enough. Maybe we should introduce "Fear Crime" Laws That might calm them down a bit. Or at least stop them screaming out loud, and waking the baby.
Quote from: BadBeast on October 26, 2010, 03:54:56 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 26, 2010, 03:52:11 AM
Quote from: BadBeast on October 26, 2010, 03:44:02 AM
Quote from: Kai on October 26, 2010, 03:36:34 AM
I for one am for hate crime laws. The only way to get people to stop doing something is to make it hurt very bad, much worse than it would benefit them to do so. Or give them a shiny distraction. Either way.
I think I probably agree with you. You can't Legislate against people having rancid points of view, but you can Legislate against people acting out on that shit. My only concern is that it will add to the general paranoia the Media like to bombard people with, in order to distort the worldview of the more suggestable into disproportionate levels of fear.
They're going to be afraid, anyway.
True enough. Maybe we should introduce "Fear Crime" Laws That might calm them down a bit. Or at least stop them screaming out loud, and waking the baby.
Too late.
(http://i476.photobucket.com/albums/rr126/TGRR/teabaggers.jpg)
You know, having looked at that, I'm thinking of emigrating. Are you monarchists taking any new people in?
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 26, 2010, 03:58:11 AM
Quote from: BadBeast on October 26, 2010, 03:54:56 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 26, 2010, 03:52:11 AM
Quote from: BadBeast on October 26, 2010, 03:44:02 AM
Quote from: Kai on October 26, 2010, 03:36:34 AM
I for one am for hate crime laws. The only way to get people to stop doing something is to make it hurt very bad, much worse than it would benefit them to do so. Or give them a shiny distraction. Either way.
I think I probably agree with you. You can't Legislate against people having rancid points of view, but you can Legislate against people acting out on that shit. My only concern is that it will add to the general paranoia the Media like to bombard people with, in order to distort the worldview of the more suggestable into disproportionate levels of fear.
They're going to be afraid, anyway.
True enough. Maybe we should introduce "Fear Crime" Laws That might calm them down a bit. Or at least stop them screaming out loud, and waking the baby.
Too late.
(http://i476.photobucket.com/albums/rr126/TGRR/teabaggers.jpg)
You know, having looked at that, I'm thinking of emigrating. Are you monarchists taking any new people in?
If you have the correct credentials, yes. I think you'll probably get in on account of having Welsh/Cornish ancestry, but you might have to learn Morris Dancing to show how keen you are.
Quote from: BadBeast on October 26, 2010, 04:05:36 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 26, 2010, 03:58:11 AM
Quote from: BadBeast on October 26, 2010, 03:54:56 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 26, 2010, 03:52:11 AM
Quote from: BadBeast on October 26, 2010, 03:44:02 AM
Quote from: Kai on October 26, 2010, 03:36:34 AM
I for one am for hate crime laws. The only way to get people to stop doing something is to make it hurt very bad, much worse than it would benefit them to do so. Or give them a shiny distraction. Either way.
I think I probably agree with you. You can't Legislate against people having rancid points of view, but you can Legislate against people acting out on that shit. My only concern is that it will add to the general paranoia the Media like to bombard people with, in order to distort the worldview of the more suggestable into disproportionate levels of fear.
They're going to be afraid, anyway.
True enough. Maybe we should introduce "Fear Crime" Laws That might calm them down a bit. Or at least stop them screaming out loud, and waking the baby.
Too late.
(http://i476.photobucket.com/albums/rr126/TGRR/teabaggers.jpg)
You know, having looked at that, I'm thinking of emigrating. Are you monarchists taking any new people in?
If you have the correct credentials, yes. I think you'll probably get in on account of having Welsh/Cornish ancestry, but you might have to learn Morris Dancing to show how keen you are.
Um.
Could I substitute ferret legging?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZjLATAUwao
You're having me on, right?
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 26, 2010, 04:08:27 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZjLATAUwao
You're having me on, right?
Absolutely not! Morris Dancing is a very respected and honourable institution. All the Royal Princes, from Philip, to Harry regularly participate in local Morris Displays, Cider Drinking, and other such cultural pillars. Maybe you could substitute it for Bog Snorkelling, or Cheese rolling if you like. But you have to be able to show Cultural Affinity.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xpmTiYDEWBo&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZC5ykhXDDbo
Quote from: BadBeast on October 26, 2010, 04:19:16 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 26, 2010, 04:08:27 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZjLATAUwao
You're having me on, right?
Absolutely not! Morris Dancing is a very respected and honourable institution. All the Royal Princes, from Philip, to Harry regularly participate in local Morris Displays, Cider Drinking, and other such cultural pillars. Maybe you could substitute it for Bog Snorkelling, or Cheese rolling if you like. But you have to be able to show Cultural Affinity.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xpmTiYDEWBo&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZC5ykhXDDbo
What the fuck is cheese rolling? No, wait, don't tell me. It's when people in Yorkshire get all naked and roll around in cheese, right? Likewise, I assume bog snorkeling is what the Welsh do when it's time for a swim?
Good fucking God, you Brits are an awful people. I'm going to move to Belgium, with Triple Zero.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 26, 2010, 04:28:06 AM
Quote from: BadBeast on October 26, 2010, 04:19:16 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 26, 2010, 04:08:27 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZjLATAUwao
You're having me on, right?
Absolutely not! Morris Dancing is a very respected and honourable institution. All the Royal Princes, from Philip, to Harry regularly participate in local Morris Displays, Cider Drinking, and other such cultural pillars. Maybe you could substitute it for Bog Snorkelling, or Cheese rolling if you like. But you have to be able to show Cultural Affinity.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xpmTiYDEWBo&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZC5ykhXDDbo
What the fuck is cheese rolling? No, wait, don't tell me. It's when people in Yorkshire get all naked and roll around in cheese, right? Likewise, I assume bog snorkeling is what the Welsh do when it's time for a swim?
Good fucking God, you Brits are an awful people. I'm going to move to Belgium, with Triple Zero.
That would be easier. Belgium will take anyone, regardless of Cultural Affinity. They might even make you King if they're impressed with you. :magick:
Quote from: BadBeast on October 26, 2010, 04:34:32 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 26, 2010, 04:28:06 AM
Quote from: BadBeast on October 26, 2010, 04:19:16 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 26, 2010, 04:08:27 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZjLATAUwao
You're having me on, right?
Absolutely not! Morris Dancing is a very respected and honourable institution. All the Royal Princes, from Philip, to Harry regularly participate in local Morris Displays, Cider Drinking, and other such cultural pillars. Maybe you could substitute it for Bog Snorkelling, or Cheese rolling if you like. But you have to be able to show Cultural Affinity.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xpmTiYDEWBo&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZC5ykhXDDbo
What the fuck is cheese rolling? No, wait, don't tell me. It's when people in Yorkshire get all naked and roll around in cheese, right? Likewise, I assume bog snorkeling is what the Welsh do when it's time for a swim?
Good fucking God, you Brits are an awful people. I'm going to move to Belgium, with Triple Zero.
That would be easier. Belgium will take anyone, regardless of Cultural Affinity. They might even make you King if they're impressed with you. :magick:
Then I'd have to get fat again. :tgrr:
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 26, 2010, 04:36:57 AM
Quote from: BadBeast on October 26, 2010, 04:34:32 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 26, 2010, 04:28:06 AM
Quote from: BadBeast on October 26, 2010, 04:19:16 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 26, 2010, 04:08:27 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZjLATAUwao
You're having me on, right?
Absolutely not! Morris Dancing is a very respected and honourable institution. All the Royal Princes, from Philip, to Harry regularly participate in local Morris Displays, Cider Drinking, and other such cultural pillars. Maybe you could substitute it for Bog Snorkelling, or Cheese rolling if you like. But you have to be able to show Cultural Affinity.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xpmTiYDEWBo&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZC5ykhXDDbo
What the fuck is cheese rolling? No, wait, don't tell me. It's when people in Yorkshire get all naked and roll around in cheese, right? Likewise, I assume bog snorkeling is what the Welsh do when it's time for a swim?
Good fucking God, you Brits are an awful people. I'm going to move to Belgium, with Triple Zero.
That would be easier. Belgium will take anyone, regardless of Cultural Affinity. They might even make you King if they're impressed with you. :magick:
Then I'd have to get fat again. :tgrr:
With great power, comes great responsibility. And great big piles of food.
Quote from: BadBeast on October 26, 2010, 04:44:45 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 26, 2010, 04:36:57 AM
Quote from: BadBeast on October 26, 2010, 04:34:32 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 26, 2010, 04:28:06 AM
Quote from: BadBeast on October 26, 2010, 04:19:16 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 26, 2010, 04:08:27 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZjLATAUwao
You're having me on, right?
Absolutely not! Morris Dancing is a very respected and honourable institution. All the Royal Princes, from Philip, to Harry regularly participate in local Morris Displays, Cider Drinking, and other such cultural pillars. Maybe you could substitute it for Bog Snorkelling, or Cheese rolling if you like. But you have to be able to show Cultural Affinity.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xpmTiYDEWBo&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZC5ykhXDDbo
What the fuck is cheese rolling? No, wait, don't tell me. It's when people in Yorkshire get all naked and roll around in cheese, right? Likewise, I assume bog snorkeling is what the Welsh do when it's time for a swim?
Good fucking God, you Brits are an awful people. I'm going to move to Belgium, with Triple Zero.
That would be easier. Belgium will take anyone, regardless of Cultural Affinity. They might even make you King if they're impressed with you. :magick:
Then I'd have to get fat again. :tgrr:
With great power, comes great responsibility. And great big piles of food.
With great power, comes public nudity.
The emperor isn't wearing any clothes, and he's comfortable with that.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 26, 2010, 04:46:44 AM
Quote from: BadBeast on October 26, 2010, 04:44:45 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 26, 2010, 04:36:57 AM
Quote from: BadBeast on October 26, 2010, 04:34:32 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 26, 2010, 04:28:06 AM
Quote from: BadBeast on October 26, 2010, 04:19:16 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 26, 2010, 04:08:27 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZjLATAUwao
You're having me on, right?
Absolutely not! Morris Dancing is a very respected and honourable institution. All the Royal Princes, from Philip, to Harry regularly participate in local Morris Displays, Cider Drinking, and other such cultural pillars. Maybe you could substitute it for Bog Snorkelling, or Cheese rolling if you like. But you have to be able to show Cultural Affinity.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xpmTiYDEWBo&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZC5ykhXDDbo
What the fuck is cheese rolling? No, wait, don't tell me. It's when people in Yorkshire get all naked and roll around in cheese, right? Likewise, I assume bog snorkeling is what the Welsh do when it's time for a swim?
Good fucking God, you Brits are an awful people. I'm going to move to Belgium, with Triple Zero.
That would be easier. Belgium will take anyone, regardless of Cultural Affinity. They might even make you King if they're impressed with you. :magick:
Then I'd have to get fat again. :tgrr:
With great power, comes great responsibility. And great big piles of food.
With great power, comes public nudity.
The emperor isn't wearing any clothes, and he's comfortable with that.
Understood. I won't point, nudge people, or giggle. Much. :horrormirth:
Quote from: BadBeast on October 26, 2010, 04:51:10 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 26, 2010, 04:46:44 AM
Quote from: BadBeast on October 26, 2010, 04:44:45 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 26, 2010, 04:36:57 AM
Quote from: BadBeast on October 26, 2010, 04:34:32 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 26, 2010, 04:28:06 AM
Quote from: BadBeast on October 26, 2010, 04:19:16 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 26, 2010, 04:08:27 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZjLATAUwao
You're having me on, right?
Absolutely not! Morris Dancing is a very respected and honourable institution. All the Royal Princes, from Philip, to Harry regularly participate in local Morris Displays, Cider Drinking, and other such cultural pillars. Maybe you could substitute it for Bog Snorkelling, or Cheese rolling if you like. But you have to be able to show Cultural Affinity.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xpmTiYDEWBo&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZC5ykhXDDbo
What the fuck is cheese rolling? No, wait, don't tell me. It's when people in Yorkshire get all naked and roll around in cheese, right? Likewise, I assume bog snorkeling is what the Welsh do when it's time for a swim?
Good fucking God, you Brits are an awful people. I'm going to move to Belgium, with Triple Zero.
That would be easier. Belgium will take anyone, regardless of Cultural Affinity. They might even make you King if they're impressed with you. :magick:
Then I'd have to get fat again. :tgrr:
With great power, comes great responsibility. And great big piles of food.
With great power, comes public nudity.
The emperor isn't wearing any clothes, and he's comfortable with that.
Understood. I won't point, nudge people, or giggle. Much. :horrormirth:
Good. You might be needing that head, later.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 26, 2010, 04:54:41 AM
Quote from: BadBeast on October 26, 2010, 04:51:10 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 26, 2010, 04:46:44 AM
Quote from: BadBeast on October 26, 2010, 04:44:45 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 26, 2010, 04:36:57 AM
Quote from: BadBeast on October 26, 2010, 04:34:32 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 26, 2010, 04:28:06 AM
Quote from: BadBeast on October 26, 2010, 04:19:16 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 26, 2010, 04:08:27 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZjLATAUwao
You're having me on, right?
Absolutely not! Morris Dancing is a very respected and honourable institution. All the Royal Princes, from Philip, to Harry regularly participate in local Morris Displays, Cider Drinking, and other such cultural pillars. Maybe you could substitute it for Bog Snorkelling, or Cheese rolling if you like. But you have to be able to show Cultural Affinity.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xpmTiYDEWBo&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZC5ykhXDDbo
What the fuck is cheese rolling? No, wait, don't tell me. It's when people in Yorkshire get all naked and roll around in cheese, right? Likewise, I assume bog snorkeling is what the Welsh do when it's time for a swim?
Good fucking God, you Brits are an awful people. I'm going to move to Belgium, with Triple Zero.
That would be easier. Belgium will take anyone, regardless of Cultural Affinity. They might even make you King if they're impressed with you. :magick:
Then I'd have to get fat again. :tgrr:
With great power, comes great responsibility. And great big piles of food.
With great power, comes public nudity.
The emperor isn't wearing any clothes, and he's comfortable with that.
Understood. I won't point, nudge people, or giggle. Much. :horrormirth:
Good. You might be needing that head, later.
Well, there's a first time for everything. :aaa:
Yeah, and it's not one of those little Babybel cheeses, it's a fucking great Double Gloucester, the size of a truck wheel! My Mate's Dad won it, back in 1968 or 69, and he's still got a quarter of it left!
Quote from: Liam on October 26, 2010, 01:24:51 PM
Salute your dad from me :D bet that's aged well.
I fell about 1/3 for sprained ankle in a rabbit hole when I played in 2002. Blacked out and everything. It was ace. Then suddenly it sucked. :lol:
It wasn't my Dad, it was my mates Dad. But next time I see him, I'll remind him what a National Hero he was. In Gloucester.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 26, 2010, 04:28:06 AM
Good fucking God, you Brits are an awful people. I'm going to move to Belgium, with Triple Zero.
I have actually no idea what the requirements are. But my gf, having the German nationality, is working on getting a double nationality German/Dutch. It's gonna work, too cause they instated a new law this year allowing people born before 1985 that have strong affinities with both NL and another nation to opt for getting a double nationality (otherwise you'd have to pick one).
Anyway, this doesn't concern you very much, but the upshot is that in the process of figuring all this shit out, she's become quite knowledgeable about the rules pertaining immigration. In fact, she's been battling with that particular part of our bureaucracy for the most part of her adult life. I should ask her the rules, cause I hear the "how do I move to NL" question a lot, these days.
BTW the part of Belgium where I live (let's call it the Northern "Dutch" part), most people are able to converse in English quite well. If you happen to go to the Belgian Belgium (the Southern "Flemish/Walloon" part), they speak Dutch and French. And the ones that speak French don't speak Dutch. Except a tiny littlebit in Brussels. On the positive side, this is the region famous for their beers and chocolate.
We also have abundant amounts of a substance that might take a littlebit of getting used to, coming from Tucson: water. It's fucking everywhere. The only bits that look remotely like desert are the beaches, and only in the summer. On the plus side, our local wildlife is laughably harmless. You can step or sit on anything and it won't matter a damn bit.
Quote from: Triple Zero on October 26, 2010, 02:47:23 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 26, 2010, 04:28:06 AM
Good fucking God, you Brits are an awful people. I'm going to move to Belgium, with Triple Zero.
I have actually no idea what the requirements are. But my gf, having the German nationality, is working on getting a double nationality German/Dutch. It's gonna work, too cause they instated a new law this year allowing people born before 1985 that have strong affinities with both NL and another nation to opt for getting a double nationality (otherwise you'd have to pick one).
Anyway, this doesn't concern you very much, but the upshot is that in the process of figuring all this shit out, she's become quite knowledgeable about the rules pertaining immigration. In fact, she's been battling with that particular part of our bureaucracy for the most part of her adult life. I should ask her the rules, cause I hear the "how do I move to NL" question a lot, these days.
BTW the part of Belgium where I live (let's call it the Northern "Dutch" part), most people are able to converse in English quite well. If you happen to go to the Belgian Belgium (the Southern "Flemish/Walloon" part), they speak Dutch and French. And the ones that speak French don't speak Dutch. Except a tiny littlebit in Brussels. On the positive side, this is the region famous for their beers and chocolate.
We also have abundant amounts of a substance that might take a littlebit of getting used to, coming from Tucson: water. It's fucking everywhere. The only bits that look remotely like desert are the beaches, and only in the summer. On the plus side, our local wildlife is laughably harmless. You can step or sit on anything and it won't matter a damn bit.
I would go instantly, irrevocably paranoid from the PTSD induced by the sudden lack of the universe trying to kill me.
I'm trying to think of something, but yeah, there's really a big lack of that over here.
Quote from: Triple Zero on October 26, 2010, 03:27:53 PM
I'm trying to think of something, but yeah, there's really a big lack of that over here.
Also, you have too much nature, and don't appreciate it.
Example: You let rivers run into the ocean.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 26, 2010, 05:02:31 PM
Quote from: Triple Zero on October 26, 2010, 03:27:53 PM
I'm trying to think of something, but yeah, there's really a big lack of that over here.
Also, you have too much nature, and don't appreciate it.
Example: You let rivers run into the ocean.
That's not an Ocean, Dok, it's the North Sea! It's only about 15 feet deep, and full of old Wrecked Ferrys, Oil rigs, and Mammoth Bones. There were some fish there once, but we accidently them all.
Just caught up with some reading...
Cheese Rolling is only beaten by the Maldon mud race in January. I'd love to have a go at both though.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/gallery/2009/jan/05/britishidentity
Quote from: BadBeast on October 26, 2010, 05:39:33 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 26, 2010, 05:02:31 PM
Quote from: Triple Zero on October 26, 2010, 03:27:53 PM
I'm trying to think of something, but yeah, there's really a big lack of that over here.
Also, you have too much nature, and don't appreciate it.
Example: You let rivers run into the ocean.
That's not an Ocean, Dok, it's the North Sea! It's only about 15 feet deep, and full of old Wrecked Ferrys, Oil rigs, and Mammoth Bones. There were some fish there once, but we accidently them all.
Yes, but that's FRESH WATER going out into that mess. Even if it's filthy, you have to clean it and store it. You'll need it when the rainy season ends.
Jebus.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 26, 2010, 06:06:24 PM
Quote from: BadBeast on October 26, 2010, 05:39:33 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 26, 2010, 05:02:31 PM
Quote from: Triple Zero on October 26, 2010, 03:27:53 PM
I'm trying to think of something, but yeah, there's really a big lack of that over here.
Also, you have too much nature, and don't appreciate it.
Example: You let rivers run into the ocean.
That's not an Ocean, Dok, it's the North Sea! It's only about 15 feet deep, and full of old Wrecked Ferrys, Oil rigs, and Mammoth Bones. There were some fish there once, but we accidently them all.
Yes, but that's FRESH WATER going out into that mess. Even if it's filthy, you have to clean it and store it. You'll need it when the rainy season ends.
Jebus.
We have plenty of Gin for when the "rainy season" ends.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 26, 2010, 04:08:27 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZjLATAUwao
You're having me on, right?
DUUDE!!
every new years at dawn, here in p-town!
Quote from: E.O.T. on October 28, 2010, 06:41:16 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 26, 2010, 04:08:27 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZjLATAUwao
You're having me on, right?
DUUDE!!
every new years at dawn, here in p-town!
Take your city and get off my continent.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 26, 2010, 03:21:50 PM
Quote from: Triple Zero on October 26, 2010, 02:47:23 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 26, 2010, 04:28:06 AM
Good fucking God, you Brits are an awful people. I'm going to move to Belgium, with Triple Zero.
I have actually no idea what the requirements are. But my gf, having the German nationality, is working on getting a double nationality German/Dutch. It's gonna work, too cause they instated a new law this year allowing people born before 1985 that have strong affinities with both NL and another nation to opt for getting a double nationality (otherwise you'd have to pick one).
Anyway, this doesn't concern you very much, but the upshot is that in the process of figuring all this shit out, she's become quite knowledgeable about the rules pertaining immigration. In fact, she's been battling with that particular part of our bureaucracy for the most part of her adult life. I should ask her the rules, cause I hear the "how do I move to NL" question a lot, these days.
BTW the part of Belgium where I live (let's call it the Northern "Dutch" part), most people are able to converse in English quite well. If you happen to go to the Belgian Belgium (the Southern "Flemish/Walloon" part), they speak Dutch and French. And the ones that speak French don't speak Dutch. Except a tiny littlebit in Brussels. On the positive side, this is the region famous for their beers and chocolate.
We also have abundant amounts of a substance that might take a littlebit of getting used to, coming from Tucson: water. It's fucking everywhere. The only bits that look remotely like desert are the beaches, and only in the summer. On the plus side, our local wildlife is laughably harmless. You can step or sit on anything and it won't matter a damn bit.
I would go instantly, irrevocably paranoid from the PTSD induced by the sudden lack of the universe trying to kill me.
I guess you didn't realize that they do this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHjVm7QhmFc) over there.
WARNING: VIDEO MAY BE A HATE CRIME AND/OR CAUSE IRREVERSIBLE DAMAGE TO YOUR RETINAS.