unclehobart
New Member
Philly? The city of brotherly love? ... unless you are a brother.
"Dumbledore is gay," says Rowling.
- Thread starter jimpeel
- Start date
BeardofPants
New Member
In light of this thread, doncha mean "whoever"? 
Error
Banned
Hate crimes in erie? LAWL.
Anyway, I can say that I "know" something to be true because as far as I am concerned, it is true. That's an opinion, but I see it as the truth. Get it?
You people make this entire forum almost unbearable. I liked it here until I decided to get into these little debates... especially ones on the gay topic, and because every single one of you have an idea as to what is normal, what should be allowed, what should be accepted, and what is oh so wrong, and anyone that tries to tell you different (me or anyone else) you just rip on them like crazy. Doesn't anyone realize that it's a waste of time? I'm never going to change anyone's opinion, you're not going to change anyone's opinion, they're not going to change mine... everyone is wrong in someone elses eyes, and everyone is right in their own.
Considering that I work with a 4year old and a 5 month old, you'd think it'd be harder to annoy me...
Anyway, I can say that I "know" something to be true because as far as I am concerned, it is true. That's an opinion, but I see it as the truth. Get it?
You people make this entire forum almost unbearable. I liked it here until I decided to get into these little debates... especially ones on the gay topic, and because every single one of you have an idea as to what is normal, what should be allowed, what should be accepted, and what is oh so wrong, and anyone that tries to tell you different (me or anyone else) you just rip on them like crazy. Doesn't anyone realize that it's a waste of time? I'm never going to change anyone's opinion, you're not going to change anyone's opinion, they're not going to change mine... everyone is wrong in someone elses eyes, and everyone is right in their own.
Considering that I work with a 4year old and a 5 month old, you'd think it'd be harder to annoy me...
jimpeel
Well-Known Member
Then you had better never go to a homosexual bar or cabaret as that word is thrown around a lot; sorta like Blacks using that other "n" word.
jimpeel
Well-Known Member
jimpeel
Well-Known Member
But you're ok with the term 'fag hag'?
Or "Mind if I bum a fag, mate?" when an Englishman wants to get a cigarette from you?
freako104
Well-Known Member
Never been to Philadelphia have you? Or Erie? Or Milwaukee? Or Chicago? Or St Louis?
Or pretty much any major city anywhere. Still hatecrimes are committed and still racism and bigotry ensue in those places.
Inkara1
Well-Known Member
Just because it doesn't reinforce your stereotypes and prejudices, it doesn't make it untrue.
I get that you're trying to say that it's an opinion enough times to convince us that it's just you "expressing your opinion" after you were called on it.
The people make the forum. If "us people" left then there wouldn't be much of a forum at all. And for this being such a terrible forum, you sure do "grace" us with your presence an awful lot.
"Hi, kettle! I'm pot! You're black."
Keep in mind that you just admitted that you CHOSE to get into debates here that you weren't really equipped to get into... despite the warning in RED LETTERS on the main page that says what can happen.
So why do you keep telling us how stupid and bigoted we are for not agreeing with you?
Someone who knows you less well than myself might read that and think you had no point.
catocom
Well-Known Member
Untrue.
You should look through some of the threads here.
I've had mine changed somewhat on some things, though the understanding of others,
and it seems I've brought a few subjects around to my thinking.
I'm not as closed minded about many subjects, as I am this one.
BTW, IMO as I've said before, if you'd look back....
My feeling is a bit different toward lesbians, and women bis, than gay men.
A little more tolerant. Why, I'm not wholly sure. Partly because of the understanding
of what I read in the book of my faith, and my interpretation of it.
I am also a little more tolerant of gays (guys) that don't Flaunt it to the point
of acting very feminine. (I despise solicitation of it)
If a man wants to lay with another man, it's no business of mine.
Just don't try to make it mine.
Inkara1
Well-Known Member
Interestingly enough, after perusing 2005 hate crime statistics from the FBI...
According to this page, there were a total of 134 hate crimes reported for all of Arkansas. I think Arkansas is a pretty "southern" state. Of the 134 hate crimes, 97 were classified as race crimes, 10 religion, 16 sexual orientation and 11 ethnicity. That's 205 reporting police agencies covering a population of just over 1.7 million people. Disclaimer: there are just under 2.7 million people in that state, so not every agency reported for 2005, although it should also be mentioned that not every agency in Pennsylvania or Ohio or Massachussetts reported either. Little Rock did not report, apparently, so just to be fair, let's double the number of sexual orientation hate crimes, to 32 among 2.7 million people. Hell, let's triple it, to 48 among 2.7 million people, just for shits and giggles, since according to the "gay expert," gays are so unsafe in the south.
Meanwhile, according to the statistics for California, there were 47 sexual orientation hate crimes in San Francisco. San Francisco, by the way, has a population of 744,041 people. San Francisco, of course, is supposed to be homo heaven, a mecca of tolerance, full of gay people and people sympathetic to gays. But take the per capita numbers and it seems like it's safer to be gay in Arkansas than to be gay in San Francisco.
Oh, also, according to the statistics, West Hollywood (population 35,716), which is the gay capital of Southern California, and was the first city to have a majority-gay city council, had 10 sexual orientation hate crimes in 2005.
According to this page, there were a total of 134 hate crimes reported for all of Arkansas. I think Arkansas is a pretty "southern" state. Of the 134 hate crimes, 97 were classified as race crimes, 10 religion, 16 sexual orientation and 11 ethnicity. That's 205 reporting police agencies covering a population of just over 1.7 million people. Disclaimer: there are just under 2.7 million people in that state, so not every agency reported for 2005, although it should also be mentioned that not every agency in Pennsylvania or Ohio or Massachussetts reported either. Little Rock did not report, apparently, so just to be fair, let's double the number of sexual orientation hate crimes, to 32 among 2.7 million people. Hell, let's triple it, to 48 among 2.7 million people, just for shits and giggles, since according to the "gay expert," gays are so unsafe in the south.
Meanwhile, according to the statistics for California, there were 47 sexual orientation hate crimes in San Francisco. San Francisco, by the way, has a population of 744,041 people. San Francisco, of course, is supposed to be homo heaven, a mecca of tolerance, full of gay people and people sympathetic to gays. But take the per capita numbers and it seems like it's safer to be gay in Arkansas than to be gay in San Francisco.
Oh, also, according to the statistics, West Hollywood (population 35,716), which is the gay capital of Southern California, and was the first city to have a majority-gay city council, had 10 sexual orientation hate crimes in 2005.
Gato_Solo
Out-freaking-standing OTC member
If you have a higher concentration of gay people, then you can skew the statistics of a hate crime more. In fact, if there is enough public pressure, you can turn almost any crime into a hate crime if the perpetrator is from a different group.
Gato_Solo
Out-freaking-standing OTC member
Not higher population...higher number of said group. In a town with one minority family of 4 out of 10,000 people, you could say that any crime against them was a hate crime...from an auto accident to a major felony.
For instance. Lets say that I'm the only black person living in your town. One day, I'm out driving my Audi, and a car runs a stop sign while the driver is yakking it up on a cell phone. Most people would agree that it was driver inattention that caused the accident, but I could make a case that said driver didn't like the fact that I was driving an Audi, and rammed me.
jimpeel
Well-Known Member
The term "hate crime" is academic and arbitrary
A hate crime is in the eye of the beholder. Consider the following:
If a Heterosexual male is beating another Heterosexual male -- all the while screaming "I hate you! I hate you! I hate you!" -- is that a hate crime?
If a Homosexual male is beating another Homosexual male -- all the while screaming "I hate you! I hate you! I hate you!" -- is that a hate crime?
If a Homosexual male is beating a Heterosexual male -- all the while screaming "I hate you! I hate you! I hate you!" -- is that a hate crime?
If a Heterosexual male is beating a Homosexual male -- all the while screaming "I hate you! I hate you! I hate you!" -- is that a hate crime?
We all know that the answer to all of these scenarios should be "No". In the case of the first three, the consensus of all would probably be just that -- "No".
But then we reach the fourth scenario and that is where we go wrong. Here we have one of the protected class being beaten by one of the unprotected class and this is where the unprotected class would say "No" while the protected class would shout a resounding "Yes".
This entire "hate crimes" crap is about the Balkanization of America and it is being bought into by even those who decry class warfare in America. That is the unfortunate part.
I have said for years now that America has been divided into distinct classes and if one were to view this class distinction as a Totem the bottom spot would be occupied by a White, Christian, Heterosexual, male with no disabilities.
The top of the Totem would be occupied by a Black, Athiest, Homosexual, woman who is disabled.
For those who doubt this simply answer this one simple question: Can you name just one city, county, state, or federal program that is geared to White, Christian, Heterosexual males with no disabilities?
Change any one of those five criteria and you could emphatically answer "Yes". Other than that, your answer is, and will remain, "No".
A hate crime is in the eye of the beholder. Consider the following:
If a Heterosexual male is beating another Heterosexual male -- all the while screaming "I hate you! I hate you! I hate you!" -- is that a hate crime?
If a Homosexual male is beating another Homosexual male -- all the while screaming "I hate you! I hate you! I hate you!" -- is that a hate crime?
If a Homosexual male is beating a Heterosexual male -- all the while screaming "I hate you! I hate you! I hate you!" -- is that a hate crime?
If a Heterosexual male is beating a Homosexual male -- all the while screaming "I hate you! I hate you! I hate you!" -- is that a hate crime?
We all know that the answer to all of these scenarios should be "No". In the case of the first three, the consensus of all would probably be just that -- "No".
But then we reach the fourth scenario and that is where we go wrong. Here we have one of the protected class being beaten by one of the unprotected class and this is where the unprotected class would say "No" while the protected class would shout a resounding "Yes".
This entire "hate crimes" crap is about the Balkanization of America and it is being bought into by even those who decry class warfare in America. That is the unfortunate part.
I have said for years now that America has been divided into distinct classes and if one were to view this class distinction as a Totem the bottom spot would be occupied by a White, Christian, Heterosexual, male with no disabilities.
The top of the Totem would be occupied by a Black, Athiest, Homosexual, woman who is disabled.
For those who doubt this simply answer this one simple question: Can you name just one city, county, state, or federal program that is geared to White, Christian, Heterosexual males with no disabilities?
Change any one of those five criteria and you could emphatically answer "Yes". Other than that, your answer is, and will remain, "No".
Gato_Solo
Out-freaking-standing OTC member
Re: The term "hate crime" is academic and arbitrary
I sincerely hope you are ready to take that one back. That is some of the most ignorant pap I've ever seen...
I sincerely hope you are ready to take that one back. That is some of the most ignorant pap I've ever seen...
jimpeel
Well-Known Member
To illustrate:
In America, you and I should be able to stand toe to toe with our noses almost touching screaming epithets, slurs, and hateful dialogue and there should be no crime in that; nor should the government intervene. It is at the point that our noses touch that the government has the authority to mandate that we be protected from others for the general welfare of society. As long as there is no actual harm done by one to another, the government has no say. There is no right enumerated in the Constitution, regardless of how much any group wants it to be so, that protects us from being offended.
Hate crimes legislation has nothing to do with hate. It has to do with power -- the kind of power that is gained by the oldest method there is -- divide and conquer -- the virtual Balkanization, the factionalization as it were, of America. I use the following to illustrate this point.
As stated previously. Imagine, if you will, that these factions are a totem. At the bottom of the totem is a White, Heterosexual, Christian, male with no disabilities. At the top of the totem is a Black, female, Homosexual, Athiest who is disabled. If you doubt this analysis, simply name one -- just one -- local, county, state, or federal program that is directed toward White male Heterosexual Christians with no disabilities. You can't. Simply change any one of those five criteria, however, and there are programs galore.
So let's examine who wields the power and why.
Women now outnumber men and are the most powerful faction by sheer numbers.
Minorities are the second most powerful faction with Blacks wielding the most power among them. This is because they have the most effective and vocal leaders. That vaunted position won't last, however.
The next most powerful faction are the religions with the Jews wielding the most power; but the Atheists are quickly gaining in influence and, in some cases, wield more influence. The Jews are still gleaning power from the Holocaust (as they should, lest we forget) and the Atheists can knock any religion with impunity -- especially Christianity. In the aspect of politics, however, Atheists wield Constitutionally mandated power granted by activist judges while the Jews hold no such mandate -- thus the Atheists' position at the top of the totem and the most points for religion.
The Homosexual movement comes next as they are vocal, visual, and they also have effective leaders.
Lastly comes the disabled as they are not as numerous, vocal, or represented. Yes, they got sidewalk ramps, parking places, and lower light switches but most people feel that they have been appeased.
So where do you score on the totem? I have weighted each faction or sub-faction on a Binary scale (start with 1, double it, and keep doubling each subsequent result). This prevents any two combinations of factions from scoring the same score thus assuring your unique position on the totem. Here are the scores. Simply add together your faction scores.
If you are not disabled, your score is 0
If you are disabled, your score is 1
If you are Heterosexual, your score is 0
If you are Homosexual, your score is 2
If you are a Christian, your score is 0
If you are a non-Christian, other than Jewish, your score is 4
If you are Jewish, your score is 8
If you are Atheist, your score is 16
If you are White, your score is 0
If you are a minority, other than Black, your score is 32
If you are Black, your score is 64
If you are male, your score is 0
If you are female, your score is 128
My score is 0 as I am a White (0) male (0) Christian (0) Heterosexual (0) with no disabilities (0).
My wife's score is 160 as she is a female (128) Mexican/Yakima Indian (32) Heterosexual (0) Christian (0) with no disabilities (0).
How do you score?
Now most people, without knowing the information I imparted to you at the top of this post, would say "He is one sick ass, homophobic, racist, mysogenistic, anti-semitic son-of-a-bitch."
Labels can sometimes fool you.
In America, you and I should be able to stand toe to toe with our noses almost touching screaming epithets, slurs, and hateful dialogue and there should be no crime in that; nor should the government intervene. It is at the point that our noses touch that the government has the authority to mandate that we be protected from others for the general welfare of society. As long as there is no actual harm done by one to another, the government has no say. There is no right enumerated in the Constitution, regardless of how much any group wants it to be so, that protects us from being offended.
Hate crimes legislation has nothing to do with hate. It has to do with power -- the kind of power that is gained by the oldest method there is -- divide and conquer -- the virtual Balkanization, the factionalization as it were, of America. I use the following to illustrate this point.
As stated previously. Imagine, if you will, that these factions are a totem. At the bottom of the totem is a White, Heterosexual, Christian, male with no disabilities. At the top of the totem is a Black, female, Homosexual, Athiest who is disabled. If you doubt this analysis, simply name one -- just one -- local, county, state, or federal program that is directed toward White male Heterosexual Christians with no disabilities. You can't. Simply change any one of those five criteria, however, and there are programs galore.
So let's examine who wields the power and why.
Women now outnumber men and are the most powerful faction by sheer numbers.
Minorities are the second most powerful faction with Blacks wielding the most power among them. This is because they have the most effective and vocal leaders. That vaunted position won't last, however.
The next most powerful faction are the religions with the Jews wielding the most power; but the Atheists are quickly gaining in influence and, in some cases, wield more influence. The Jews are still gleaning power from the Holocaust (as they should, lest we forget) and the Atheists can knock any religion with impunity -- especially Christianity. In the aspect of politics, however, Atheists wield Constitutionally mandated power granted by activist judges while the Jews hold no such mandate -- thus the Atheists' position at the top of the totem and the most points for religion.
The Homosexual movement comes next as they are vocal, visual, and they also have effective leaders.
Lastly comes the disabled as they are not as numerous, vocal, or represented. Yes, they got sidewalk ramps, parking places, and lower light switches but most people feel that they have been appeased.
So where do you score on the totem? I have weighted each faction or sub-faction on a Binary scale (start with 1, double it, and keep doubling each subsequent result). This prevents any two combinations of factions from scoring the same score thus assuring your unique position on the totem. Here are the scores. Simply add together your faction scores.
If you are not disabled, your score is 0
If you are disabled, your score is 1
If you are Heterosexual, your score is 0
If you are Homosexual, your score is 2
If you are a Christian, your score is 0
If you are a non-Christian, other than Jewish, your score is 4
If you are Jewish, your score is 8
If you are Atheist, your score is 16
If you are White, your score is 0
If you are a minority, other than Black, your score is 32
If you are Black, your score is 64
If you are male, your score is 0
If you are female, your score is 128
My score is 0 as I am a White (0) male (0) Christian (0) Heterosexual (0) with no disabilities (0).
My wife's score is 160 as she is a female (128) Mexican/Yakima Indian (32) Heterosexual (0) Christian (0) with no disabilities (0).
How do you score?
Now most people, without knowing the information I imparted to you at the top of this post, would say "He is one sick ass, homophobic, racist, mysogenistic, anti-semitic son-of-a-bitch."
Labels can sometimes fool you.
Gato_Solo
Out-freaking-standing OTC member
And you actually believe that. I'm shocked. Almost to the point of speechlessness...almost. I'll hand you back a few examples...
A minority convicted of a crime is usually given a harsher penalty than a caucasion. A minority is more likely to be stopped and searched by the police than a caucasion. A minority is more likely looked upon with suspicion than a caucasion...even by other minorities. A minority is more likely protrayed as being a criminal in the media. A minority is more likely to be a victim of a crime by a caucasion than a caucasion being victimized by a minority. Your 'totem pole' is extremely wobbly. I suggest you find a new angle. As for my facts, they are easily accessible on the FBI website.
jimpeel
Well-Known Member
Gato_Solo
You didn't get it, did you? The totem is based on political power and the ability to get extreme legislation passed for "our side".
Name me any legislation that has been passed for the protection of men.
You can't.
I can show you the TITLE IV-VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN SUBTITLE A-SAFE STREETS FOR WOMEN ACT from the VIOLENT CRIME CONTROL AND
LAW ENFORCEMENT ACT OF 1993 (As passed by the House on August 21, 1994 and subsequently approved by the Senate on August 25, 1994) also known as the 1994 Crime Bill.
I can show you TITLE IX legislation that has destroyed men's athletics curricula in every major university in America.
Name me any legislation that has been passed for the protection of Whites.
You can't.
I can show you numerous bills, acts, laws, and legislation for the protection of minorities.
Name me any legislation that has been passed for the protection of Christians.
You can't.
I can show you federally funded legislation for the Holocaust Museum.
Name me any legislation that has been passed for the protection of Heterosexuals.
You can't.
I can show you hate crimes legislation for Homosexuals.
Name me any legislation that has been passed for the protection of the able person.
You can't.
I can show you the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
In every case, there have been vocal factions of these groups which have been able to get specialized legislation passed just for them. The "just us" crowd as Jesse Jackson so aptly puts it when he is speaking of the opposition.
You cannot illustrate to me any legislation at any level which has been passed which is geared to the people at the bottom of the totem. This is what I was speaking of when I said "The Balkanization of America". We now have the tyranny of the minority because of various guilt trips that the minority have successfully been able to put upon the majority.
Citing disproportionate justice has nothing to do with what I am speaking of. Do you truly believe that the pendulum would not swing the opposite direction if the current majority were the minority and the current minority were the majority? If the current wealthy were poor and the current poor were wealthy? If you do, then there is truly where the "pap" lies.
You didn't get it, did you? The totem is based on political power and the ability to get extreme legislation passed for "our side".
Name me any legislation that has been passed for the protection of men.
You can't.
I can show you the TITLE IV-VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN SUBTITLE A-SAFE STREETS FOR WOMEN ACT from the VIOLENT CRIME CONTROL AND
LAW ENFORCEMENT ACT OF 1993 (As passed by the House on August 21, 1994 and subsequently approved by the Senate on August 25, 1994) also known as the 1994 Crime Bill.
I can show you TITLE IX legislation that has destroyed men's athletics curricula in every major university in America.
Name me any legislation that has been passed for the protection of Whites.
You can't.
I can show you numerous bills, acts, laws, and legislation for the protection of minorities.
Name me any legislation that has been passed for the protection of Christians.
You can't.
I can show you federally funded legislation for the Holocaust Museum.
Name me any legislation that has been passed for the protection of Heterosexuals.
You can't.
I can show you hate crimes legislation for Homosexuals.
Name me any legislation that has been passed for the protection of the able person.
You can't.
I can show you the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
In every case, there have been vocal factions of these groups which have been able to get specialized legislation passed just for them. The "just us" crowd as Jesse Jackson so aptly puts it when he is speaking of the opposition.
You cannot illustrate to me any legislation at any level which has been passed which is geared to the people at the bottom of the totem. This is what I was speaking of when I said "The Balkanization of America". We now have the tyranny of the minority because of various guilt trips that the minority have successfully been able to put upon the majority.
Citing disproportionate justice has nothing to do with what I am speaking of. Do you truly believe that the pendulum would not swing the opposite direction if the current majority were the minority and the current minority were the majority? If the current wealthy were poor and the current poor were wealthy? If you do, then there is truly where the "pap" lies.
