Tags
black people, disabled people, gay people, hate crime, hate crime legislation, inequality under the law, Jewish people, laws, obscure celebrities, Pauly Shore, sentencing, The Wiez, untalented stars
By Smaktakula
For those who don’t know, a hate crime is a crime that is committed against a black, disabled, jewish or gay person that isn’t committed by a black, disabled, jewish or gay person.
The distinction can be tricky. Simply hating someone and then committing a crime against them is not sufficient to be considered a hate crime. Likewise, because a crime is hateful, doesn’t automatically qualify it as a hate crime. For example, stabbing an elderly woman 13 times in the face for her social security check is not, in and of itself, a hate crime. Supposing however, that the old lady in question is a lesbian while her attacker is not, then it is indeed a hate crime.
Hate crimes are considered more heinous than other crimes. As such, they carry stiffer sentences than their non-hate brethren, in much the way that stealing $1,000,000 is considered worse than stealing $49.50. Given that the first sum is worth more, most people would agree that the theft of same should carry with it a more rigorous penalty.
Logically then, the types of people who are potential victims of hate crimes are of greater value to society than those who aren’t. Were this not the case, all crimes of a similar nature (i.e., assault, rape, murder, being salty) would be punished equally under the law.
Since all crimes of a similar nature do not meet this criterion, it follows that the least worthy element in our society is the straight, white, ambulatory male.
When Viewed In This Light, It Does Make A Certain Sense.
Promethean Times 
These sorts of laws are created by people who want things fair, but they ask the government to get involved, which always seems to do more harm than good.
People always look to the government to solve problems. Whether it’s the environment, healthcare, education, poverty, and the list goes on and on.
Take for example poverty; the free market without the help of the government was solving the issue of poverty. From the year 1940-1960 the poverty level was decreasing by 1% every year.
You see the government knows, like any drug dealer, if you don’t have people who need the government, then people will not want a government, so in the 60’s under President Kennedy, great social reform happened, which then carried over to President Johnson. And like all government projects, poverty didn’t get better, it got worst.
During the Kennedy Administration in 1963, the President had set in motion a plan to develop an antipoverty program. This was not developed when he died, but was taken on and developed by the Johnson administration.
The War on Poverty consisted of job-training, youth employment and medical services which had not been implemented during the Kennedy administration. A number of anti-poverty programs were developed.
**Sounds to me like they were solving the problem…please show me how by implementing these programs that they negatively effected the poverty issues. I get the idea you were trying to portray here, but we must get to the point before we get too lost in meaningless details.
The government doesn’t solve problems it creates them.
I see after reading this again, my wife added her comment.
**Sounds to me like they were solving the problem…please show me how by implementing these programs that they negatively effected the poverty issues. I get the idea you were trying to portray here, but we must get to the point before we get too lost in meaningless details
PENISPENISPENIS!
http://www.amnestyusa.org/death-penalty/death-penalty-facts/death-penalty-and-race/page.do?id=1101091
Death Penalty and Race.
You bring up an excellent point which speaks to the inverse of my example. The death penalty (which we do not support) affects people of color disproportionately. Also, I believe a person of color is MORE likely to get the death penalty for killing a white person than for killing another person of color.