The American Critic

Marc on May 20th, 2009 at 6:56 PM

 

Navy_Rob--- If I would go and kill somebody its already punishable as murder, what makes it worse based on color, creed, sexual preference?

I think that these characteristics (color, creed, sexual preference) more easily provoke adverse emotions in an individual, versus other characteristics, such as where they shop, if they buy American products, or what their diet consists of. Therefore, in my personal opinion, by labeling crimes based on characteristics which have a proven tendency to be emotionally provoking (i.e., the "hate crimes"), in theory, potential aggressors would be presented with an elevated consequence, which is judiciously enforced and supported by society at large, as a means to make them think once more before deciding to commit the crime in question in an effort to propagate hate.

It seems there are no statistics available (that I know of) to support my theory, but ultimately, I view hate crime legislation as an effort to curtail radical behavior stemming from "hate." I feel such legislation is extremely important and warranted because the facts are this country is filled with many persons and groups possessing deep hatred (e.g., The Klan, Nazis and others).

Isn't the idea for society to move on and end racism and other forms of bigotry (e.g., gay bashing)? This goal should be obvious by now---it's 2009. In summary, hate crime laws aim to stamp out existing veins of hate whose existence can't be denied. It doesn't take a microscope to find hate in the US. Keep in mind that judicial procedure must ensure the defendant did in fact commit a crime to perpetuate or manifest an evident hate toward the victim(s).

Here are percentages of hate crime motivations.

Here are official resources on the subject.

I also think that we should not allow states to turn away from using hate crime legislation. This is my opinion, of course, because, I realize that there are not statistics yet available to use science to MAKE THEM become partners in stamping out hate. Many state constitutions, on a quick separate note, still have ridiculous clauses, such as that of Texas, which requires elected officials to acknowledge the existence of a supreme being. Who cares if I believe in a supreme being, and how many current Texas officials should be held guilty of perjury on account of violating this clause? I propose polygraphing all Texas officials to those who insist the clause is valid, and there are many other arguments I could layout, many of which would be less humorous.

I hate to offer this suggestion prematurely (in light of this discussion and others, since I realize I'm wandering off topic and should probably wrap up) but it is becoming more and more evident to me that in many subject areas the sole thing we have to look forward to guiding mankind in the future, our savior so to speak, is yet another man-made concept and skill, namely science. Whether it be for using statistics to inform decision making, refute harmful fallacies, or unite humans with culturally diverse ancestries (all of which I believe are already beginning to take place through the application of scientific advancements), it's evident that things cultural values, superstition, and, in the worse sense, dictatorship, while each had their place in history, aren't fit for the demands of the future.

Count on May 20th, 2009 at 6:24 PM

 

ArrogantlyBlunt- I guess, if you go to a Christian site you are going to get Christian links. My guess is you should stay away from places, and people, you have no respect for. You want christians to tolerate your belief while you defame them and their beliefs! Very open minded of you!

My exact quote was:

Count- I think pornography ought to be legal in a free country and that efforts to remove it claiming it fits the definition of "obscene" and violates "community standards" are unconstitutional. ...They (Note for the slow (AB): I'm talking about fanatics like yourself, not all religious people) don't want pornography to be legal because it's degrading. The link I provided even has an ad for a DVD about Jesus.

Wow you're a tool. I've stated this over and over again, but Im not against the religious or Christians specifically. Not in this thread but in my other article, where I even presented both sides fairly, I've made my view on religion clear. Here are my words (again):

For the record, I'm 100% for freedom of religion, and I believe people should have a right to worship whatever they want however they want, so long as I and everybody else is permitted to do the same.

Count- I'll hold up my end and listen to everything you and anyone else have to say with an open mind.

You even make good points for your claim that there is a push to demonize Christianity (though I would have to expand that to religion in general.

Yet another creationist argument is the religious experience. Some people claim to have experienced the presence of God beyond the shadow of doubt. Obviously, this claim isn't falsifiable, and therefore unscientific, but should we not consider anecdotal evidence simply because it doesn't fit the stringent criteria of science?

Lol I sound real biased. I made the claim that the most vehement detractors from pornography are the religious and backed up what I said with a source. That source was a Christian site. When I say “the religious” am I really talking about all religious people? Are you seriously that retarded? I'm not defaming religious people, I'm defaming religious radicals like yourself who preach freedom when it suits their cause and denounce it when people use it to purchase pornography.

I agree that a baby can and should be killed all the way up to 3 years old, if the mother or father does not want them. ...You're not really human, are you before 2 or 3 years old?
It is not murder if the child is not wanted. I do agree with you!



This mythical statement you “agree” with, where I said a baby should be killed up to 3 years old, where is it? Was it in the original article or in a critique? Surely you didn't just pull it out of your ass to support your argument? So you think a fetus = 3 year old child. Does that mean masturbation is murder? If a woman is raped and she gets an abortion is she a murderer?

ArrogantlyBlunt- I am sorry about being so mean. I did not know this was a sickness that you have! I thought you were just a hater!
[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phobia]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phobia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fanaticism

Fanaticism is an emotion of being filled with excessive, uncritical zeal, particularly for an extreme religious or political cause or in some cases sports, or with an obsessive enthusiasm for a pastime or hobby. Philosopher George Santayana defines fanaticism as "redoubling your effort when you have forgotten your aim"[1], "A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject". By either description the fanatic displays very strict standards and little tolerance for contrary ideas or opinions.Winston Churchill
The difference between a fan and a fanatic is that while both have an overwhelming liking or interest in a given subject, behaviour of a fanatic will be viewed as violating prevailing social norms, while that of a fan will not violate those norms (although the person may be considered unusual).[2] A fanatic differs from a crank, in that a crank is defined as a person who holds a position or opinion which is so far from the norm as to appear ludicrous and/or provably wrong, such as a belief in widespread alien abduction. In contrast, the subject of the fanatic's obsession may be "normal", such as an interest in religion or politics, except that the scale of the person's involvement, devotion, or obsession with the activity or cause is abnormal or disproportionate.

ArrogantlyBlunt- The obscenity of porn: X-rated and exploitive

Looks promising. Let's have a look.

Pornography provided a road map for the tortures at Abu Ghraib, for example, which were widely considered reprehensible once disclosed.

Source?

But there are no redeeming features to pornography, which shows girls and women being sexually abused, and promotes the notion that this kind of treatment is "sex" and may be required of other women.

Not all pornography shows abuse. Some pornography does just show sex. She doesn't define abuse, she just vaguely claims porn sex is “abuse”. Are you also against animated porn?

the racism and cruelty to women revealed in the titles and descriptions were extreme.

In that quote she's referring to the site Adult Video news, or www.avn.com. I have reviewed both the photo and video sections of this site (for research purposes, of course ;) and found exactly 0 “racist” or “cruel” titles or descriptions whatsoever. Looks like you're not the only one out there who can pull “facts” out of their ass.

ArrogantlyBlunt- I guess if you have a good scape goat you do not have to look up the facts.

I guess if you have a crusade to fight against pornography you don't need to provide facts. You haven't provided a single one.

Hey don't worry about the truth, you have the religions to blame for all the crap. After all, woman ain't shit any way, they need to know their place in this U.S. of 'Woman Abusive free rights' America. You knew, I think I agree with you on this one too! More Porn, more abuse, we know it don't hurt no one!

Fail. I'm not the one who wants to out and out tell a woman what she can and can't do with her own body. If a woman wants to start a career in pornography, how is it any of your business? Don't try to weasel your way out of this, you aren't advocating to stop abuse, you're advocating to stop pornography in general. Your argument that porn causes sexual abuse is as fallacious as the argument that Catholicism causes sexual abuse. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_Church_sex_abuse_scandal

Damn! I should have read the whole thing! It goes on to say you are a hater! Shame, shame on you, hater!



This may help you.

Yes, I can see it now! Hate, hate, and more Religious hatred! Of course you will say it is just your right to "freedom of speech". And you know every one that hates, like you, will believe it

Are you seriously that much of a coward? You coveniently dodged my argument and began a barrage of (weak) insults. My statement again:

Count- Their view of god "creating man in his image" doesn't allow them to consider that god may create a homosexual person(mostly because they interpret the bible literally, but that's another article)

Do you even have an answer to this? You've conveniently left the issue of homosexual rights out of your tirade. How do you view homosexuals?

WOW! I see we both have freedoms of religion and speech, in the same amendment! But mine is before yours! Does that mean the founding fathers thought freedom of religion came before freedom of speech? Some thing for me to look up.




As I have said (multiple) times before, I'm 100% in favor of freedom of religion. It's people's moral right as well as their legal right protected under the Constitution. If you want to worship Buddha, Jesus, or a giant spaghetti monster orbiting venus, be my guest. But don't try to impose your own religion on others. Don't tell people they can't purchase pornography because your pastor tells you it's evil.

Ironically, you don't even know my private feelings on religion. You have no idea whether I'm religious or even what my religion is. You claim I attack people of faith, but what I'm really attacking is your claim that you can tell others how to live their own lives. If you want to live in a religious dictatorship, move to Iran. The U.S. Constitution is built around freedom. Freedom to live our lives as long as we don't interfere with the freedom and safety of others. Many, many people died for us to have that right. Perhaps without even realizing it, you are working toward undoing all that they have sacrificed.

ArrogantlyBlunt on May 20th, 2009 at 1:08 AM

 

In each of these three issues, the most vehement detractors are the religious. -- Count
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phobia
A phobia (from the Greek: φόβος, phóbos, "fear"), or morbid fear, is an irrational, intense, persistent fear of certain situations, activities, things, or people. The main symptom of this disorder is the excessive, unreasonable desire to avoid the feared subject. When the fear is beyond one's control, or if the fear is interfering with daily life, then a diagnosis under one of the anxiety disorders can be made.
Phobias (in the clinical meaning of the term) are the most common form of anxiety disorders. An American study by the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) found that between 8.7% and 18.1% of Americans suffer from phobias. Broken down by age and gender, the study found that phobias were the most common mental illness among women in all age groups and the second most common illness among men older than 25.
I am sorry about being so mean. I did not know this was a sickness that you have! I thought you were just a hater!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phobia
Terms indicating prejudice or class discrimination
A number of terms with the suffix -phobia are primarily understood as negative attitudes towards certain categories of people or other things, used in an analogy with the medical usage of the term. Usually these kinds of "phobias" are described as fear, dislike, disapproval, prejudice, hatred, discrimination, or hostility towards the object of the "phobia". Often this attitude is based on prejudices and is a particular case of general xenophobia.
Class discrimination is not always considered a phobia in the clinical sense because it is believed to be only a symptom of other psychological issues, or the result of ignorance, or of political or social beliefs. In other words, unlike clinical phobias, which are usually qualified with disabling fear, class discrimination usually has roots in social relations.
Below are some examples:
Chemophobia - prejudice against artificial substances in favour of "natural" substances.
Christianophobia - fear or dislike of Christians or Christianity.
Ephebiphobia - fear or dislike of youth or adolescents.
Gynophobia - fear or dislike of women.
Homophobia - fear or dislike of homosexuality.
Xenophobia - fear or dislike of strangers or the unknown, sometimes used to describe nationalistic political beliefs and movements.
Damn! I should have read the whole thing! It goes on to say you are a hater! Shame, shame on you, hater!
Their view of god "creating man in his image" doesn't allow them to consider that god may create a homosexual person(mostly because they interpret the bible literally, but that's another article). -- Count
Yes, I can see it now! Hate, hate, and more Religious hatred! Of course you will say it is just your right to "freedom of speech". And you know every one that hates, like you, will believe it.
The Bill of Rights:
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
WOW! I see we both have freedoms of religion and speech, in the same amendment! But mine is before yours! Does that mean the founding fathers thought freedom of religion came before freedom of speech? Some thing for me to look up. Nite-Nite, hater.

ArrogantlyBlunt on May 19th, 2009 at 5:46 PM

 

I think pornography ought to be legal in a free country and that efforts to remove it claiming it fits the definition of "obscene" and violates "community standards" are unconstitutional. --Count
"Producing pornography requires that a woman, usually young and badly needing money, often with a history of sexual and physical abuse, should dissociate emotionally from her body and typically take a number of drugs to survive the experience. These drugs will include muscle relaxants, drugs to dull consciousness, painkillers and local anaesthetic."
The obscenity of porn: X-rated and exploitive
In each of these three issues, the most vehement detractors are the religious. -- Count
I guess if you have a good scape goat you do not have to look up the facts.
Pornography provided a road map for the tortures at Abu Ghraib, for example, which were widely considered reprehensible once disclosed.
But there are no redeeming features to pornography, which shows girls and women being sexually abused, and promotes the notion that this kind of treatment is "sex" and may be required of other women.
the most vehement detractors are the religious -- Count
the racism and cruelty to women revealed in the titles and descriptions were extreme.
Hey don't worry about the truth, you have the religions to blame for all the crap. After all, woman ain't shit any way, they need to know their place in this U.S. of 'Woman Abusive free rights' America. You knew, I think I agree with you on this one too! More Porn, more abuse, we know it don't hurt no one!

Abortion, personally, would never have been a choice for me, but I would not want others to be denied the right to choose. That being said, I do not think that it should ever be used as a form of birth control. As far as pornography, I agree, if you don't like it don't buy it. But then, when you throw child pornography into the mix, lock those guys up forever as far as I'm concerned. As for gay partnerships, I agree with Count on that one. Who am I or anyone else to tell someone who they should be attracted to or fall in love with or marry for that matter. On the gay adoption issue, I am aquainted with a gay couple who adopted a little girl from China. This child spent so much of her young life with her arm tied to a crib that her arm doesn't function properly. With therapy, it has improved much, but may never function at 100% capacity. They are providing her with a loving, caring environment. Would her life be better if she was adopted by a man and a woman? Maybe, but she has been saved from a life where she probably would have endured much pain and suffering. Are all gay couples fit for adoption? No, but neither are all hetrosexual couples. That should be determined on a case by case basis.