Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Those are terms used by the government. Philosophically, morally....they're meaningless.
All that counts is the non-aggression principle.
So you are saying that there is no difference between:
1) Killing someone in clear self-defense,
2) Plotting and carrying out a political assassination,
3) Killing someone by driving recklessly, and
4) Having a party on a deck you know to need repairs, which fails and causes people to die?
Those are all morally equivalent scenarios to you?
So you are saying that there is no difference between:
1) Killing someone in clear self-defense,
2) Plotting and carrying out a political assassination,
3) Killing someone by driving recklessly, and
4) Having a party on a deck you know to need repairs, which fails and causes people to die?
Those are all morally equivalent scenarios to you?
1. Not a violation of the NAP. Self-defense is permissible under the non-aggression principle. The NAP is clear about that. If someone initiates force against you then you have the right to defend yourself. Not morally wrong.
2. Violation of the NAP. Morally wrong.
3. Violation of the NAP. Morally wrong.
4. Violation of the NAP. Morally wrong. Property is by extension your person in a free society. The deck is your property and sits on your property that is your actual soil. Not disclosing known defects is fraud...a clear violation of the NAP.
Recap, #1 is not morally wrong. #2-#4 are morally wrong.
We don't jail people for having thoughts because that is not how our criminal justice system works.
We do, however, take thoughts into account when combined with acts.
For example, we more severely punish an intentional murder than we do a criminally negligent homicide. The difference is the mind of the accused.
You seem to want this to be a slippery slope, but it is not.
Intentional murder and negligence is a difference in circumstance, not motive. And in the case of intentional homicide why should motive be a factor in sentencing?
Why are certain thoughts a crime after a physical act and not before?
This story appears to indicate an illegal Mexican Immigrant suspected of killing a young Muslim girl can't be guilty of a hate crime. How did you answer on the poll? https://twitter.com/BuzzFeedNews/sta...00043973570560
Does labeling it a hate crime make her any less dead?
The alleged killer, Torres, shouldn't have been in the US. He was here illegally according to ICE.
In a statement issued Monday afternoon, an ICE spokesperson confirmed that the agency has lodged a detainer request against the El Salvadoran national, indicating that he is an illegal alien.
“On June 19, ICE lodged a detainer on Darwin Martinez Torres, a citizen and national of El Salvador, with the Adult Detention Center in Fairfax, Virginia. ICE lodges detainers on aliens who have been arrested on local criminal charges when the agency has probable cause to believe an alien is removable from the United States. Mr. Martinez Torres has no prior encounters with ICE,” ICE spokesperson Carissa Cutrell told The DC.
The Fairfax County Sheriff’s Office confirmed to The DC that Torres “is a resident of El Salvador.”
This story appears to indicate an illegal Mexican Immigrant suspected of killing a young Muslim girl can't be guilty of a hate crime. ...
No. No it does not.
The second sentence of the link you posted:
Quote:
Police said they currently had no information to indicate that this was a hate crime.
From further in the story
Quote:
"No evidence has been uncovered that shows this murder was motivated by race or religion," said Julie Parker, the public affairs director for Fairfax County Police.
"If during the course of this ongoing criminal investigation, information or evidence later surfaces that would indicate this was hate-motivated, detectives would certainly ensure appropriate charges are filed," police said in a statement.
I now return you to your regularly schedule P&oC BS
Do you not understand that adding jail time for motive is effectively criminalizing certain thoughts?
Well... no, not really. The thoughts are not being penalized. It is the action that is penalized more harshly because, when motivated by bias toward a group, it has a greater negative impact on society.
Hate crime laws are legitimate in theory. But of course in practice they are not applied fairly, and wind up causing more injustice than they remedy.
This the reason why we vet and ban Immigrants form those countries of violence and Terrorism. Itnot only Murder, but we have a problem of Muslim Men and Boys raping American women. Where is the outrage.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
