RKMBs Forums .::Important::. Politics and Current Events Obama Signs Pedophile Protection Act

And an intent is....what, exactly?

The thing that most right wing nuts don't get is the phrase "consenting adults". They whine and bitch about if gays get married it would lead to people marrying animals and pedophiles marrying kids. Neither kids nor animals can give consent. This is what people like g-man don't understand.

You're making a person's thoughts criminal by adding more years to a sentence for them.

Intent is what's evident according to action. It distinguishes crimes of passion from premeditated crime.

Punishment is not relative according to motivation. It's relative according to what motivation inspires because that's all that can be proven about it without being a mind reader.

The only arguments I've heard refer to polygamy, and they're right.

The institution of marriage wasn't built on the idea of marrying "consenting adults."

You don't need to be a mind reader to establish hate crime. The evidence is always clearly present. This is why they're called 'hate crimes'.

You've not argued against the concept...you're throwing support on, but looking at it through your own bias.

We (you all) already do this. This is why we have parole reviews. People are released/detained based on the probability of recurrence all the time. Sentences are decided based directly on the assumed threat to society the individual poses.

Based on their actions in prison. If they're constantly in fights, they won't get paroled. If they've become 'model' prisoners and not been disciplinary problems, done work releases, etc., then they will. Once again, it's based on their actions in prison and not some reading on a thought-o-meter.

That's a nice sidestep, but sadly amiss. A large part of these decisions come down to psychological profiling (mind reading, if you will)...and in the case of sentencing, personal opinion based on assumed remorse or lack thereof.

I'm pretty damn sure that their actions as an inmate have a huge factor in whether or not they'll get parole. Inmates aren't given regular psychological exams in custody unless it is ordered by the court, which would indicate a mental disorder or handicap. Most inmates don't receive such testing. You've been watching too many movies.

Anyhow...yeah. I give up.

Clearly, it is only in the case of attempting to thwart hate crime that we attempt to divine the intent of the attacker.

Skewed reporting of news is healthy and beneficial to all.

America is the greatest country in the world.

Freedom applies only to those who wish to impose their hatred on others, not freedom from their ideologies.

Anything else I've learned today that I'm forgetting? Every visit to the RKMBs is just so bloody educational, I can't seem to absorb it all.

'bout goddamned time you admitted it, snowback.

All that's required to establish a "hate crime" crime case is for a white individual to beat up a black or gay person. But that's neither evidence of racism or hatred of homosexuals. So no, it's clearly present. It's intuited.



...You're drunk aren't you?

I've been in fights where I was being an ass and someone called me on it. I earned those, fair and square.

I've been mugged at random on the street.

I've also been in fights where someone had to step up on behalf a woman that was indeed being victimized.

And, finally, I've been in fights where someone felt the need to educate me about how sick and twisted I was for being a fag.

I know the difference in each occasion, and I'd never attempt to overlay one on the other. The last one was clearly what it was.

If there is a problem with such an attempt to exploit the law...it's not the fault of the law. The problem is something else. The proposed idea that there will be those who will abuse it doesn't negate the need for the law.

And yes, I may indeed be on my way to being drunk. Would I be here at all if that weren't the case?

I had to go visit my parents and run some errands. I haven't been at my computer for a couple hours now.

And now I'm going to get ready for dinner. But I will respond.

A simple "yes" or "no" would have taken less time than typing out your explanation of what else you're doing.

I'm really not interested in hearing anything else you have to say.

I'm glad you at least appreciate the reasoning behind my slippery slope concerns. I'm not trying to pick a fight with you, I just think it's kind of a scary thing to give any court license to intuit a defendant's inner motives and attitudes. and that would be almost necessary, it seems, in any attempt to determine whether a particular crime was a hate crime. I agree with doc that the severity of the offense should be the primary determinant in sentencing at all times.

are you supposed to get all confused here? your the dude fucking other dudes, you are already confused. i got nothing to do with that.

but seriously. are you saying gays are lesser people than straights? that they are somehow more hurt by being beaten by someone that doesnt like their sexual perversions than if someone beats a straight woman for cutting them off in traffic?

fear is fear. for you to say an old woman being beaten for a traffic mistake will live in less fear than a gay guy beaten for being gay is laughable and not based at all in reality.

the real truth here is that many gays, and certainly not all of them feel a guilt for their sexual desires. they look for a special legal status for validation. deep down you know its true.

Hahaha...no, not at all. What I want is forced equality. It's not my own self image that's at fault, it's people like you who perceive a difference. Addressing me in condescending tones or as somehow 'confused' or in possession of 'perversions' (as you so charmingly put it) is proof positive that people are still ignorant and set in their hate. And I don't consider you any sort of evil...you're just average joe.

It's not a special legal status they're talking about, nor is it primarily for homosexuals. I think a more common target for hate crimes in the United States is actually the Muslim population. I don't think it's "special status" to insist people be held accountable for xenophobia and bigotry. You cannot govern how someone feels...but you can punish their actions. Hate crime legislation is a step in the right direction.

Like I said when responding to you...any victim of a violent attack is going to feel violated. But the woman in your analogy is a victim of random violence. She was not targeted for something she is and cannot (nor should have to in a 'free country') change. She happened to be driving in the wrong lane. She's not likely to head out in the near future and be subjected to slurs and future threats.

It really is apples and oranges, mate.

If the people who passed the law know that it's logic can be attributed to pedophiles, then that means there's something inherently wrong with the law itself.



You can't force equality.



If the law refers to a person or persons' particular characteristic, then it ascribing a special legal status.

you say this because you are gay and not an old lady. to say that old people dont live in fear is absurd.

Here's the thing. If someone beats me to a pulp because of something I really believe in, I would not live in fear. Fear is something you give no one can put it in you. If you give someone fear that's your fault. If some punks walked up to me and threatened to beat me up because I was straight. I would tell them they better have packed a lunch because it's gunna be an all nighter. Not because I really think I could beat the punks, likely if I was out numbered I would be beaten sensless. But I wont live in fear, I wont allow it. I'm not a tough guy, but I can't be arsed to be scared of dying or being beaten. If some scrubs are gunna kill me or beat me, being scared isnt going to stop it.

I've been attacked for being in the wrong town, or dating the wrong girl before. I've taken my lumps and I've given them. I dated who I wanted and went where I wanted, fuck the bullies.

If gays want to stop this crap(I think it's bull to physically attack people because of differing views), you got to quit being victims man. Don't take the shit, and if you get it dont whine about it. I never cried about an ass whooping in my life deserved or not deserved.

I'm actually going to agree with that one. Far more appropriate (and effective) than any legislation is personal ownership. A victim is always going to allow themselves to be a victim. I berate the same class of people for standing up and declaring Obama as some sort of validation of their existence, when clearly he's nothing like them, having moved past the idea of being a societal victim and taken life by the horns. He's not an example of what a 'black man' can accomplish. He's an example of what a man can accomplish, skin colour is irrelevant.

That said though, as a society, we are in need of guidelines. People respond to punishment (or the prospect thereof) and not suggestion. You can't make people stop...and you can't condone this behavior (as a society). Vigilante justice isn't the answer either.

As G-man said earlier, education is necessary. But when simple things like birth control are a massive hurdle in a crippled system....where do you start?

presactly. because I learned just about everything I really needed to know on these boards (fucking hell), it's become obvious to me that when someone is the target of some good old-fashioned lulz, BAWWWWWWWWing about it will usually not help their cause. more often than not, it just lends people that much more ammo. it completely escapes me why no matter how many times that's been made obvious, people insist on lending their detractors more and more and more power by making themselves into either cowering, whimpering victims or self-absorbed, indignant WHARRGARBLERs who lash out at every real and perceived persecutor within reach.



very good. at no point is personal responsibility ever a bad idea, and it's especially imperative when you are trying to affect others' perception of a group with which you identify. as an individual, don't be a lolcow. if you willingly self-identify with a group of people, you share in the collective responsibility for how that group is perceived.

if people seek to invoke hate-crimes laws for comparatively minor offenses (albeit offenses nonetheless) such as verbal abuse, they are essentially the same thing as the pussy bitch who whines to rob about being picked on in OT. regardless of why you're being subjected to it, it's not like other people who don't identify with the same group(s) as you don't ever see verbal abuse of their own. wanting punishments to be stiffer when your 'people' are singled out than when other people are implies unwarranted self-importance.

look at the 60s for a moment. there were a couple different ways blacks in America reacted to injustice and sought equality. who do we remember as the most effective and meaningful? time and again it's the most dignified ones who kept their heads, didn't lash out blindly no matter how justified it might have seemed, and never compromised the integrity of their message for the sake of sheer volume. now look at the different ways gays are pursuing what they want today. I've seen one or two of the parades, and most of 'em are the antithesis of dignified. don't confront prejudice with actions that confirm stereotypes. I think you recognize this; your responses here tell me that you do. no movement will collectively be perceived as more legitimate than you as an individual representative of said movement choose to behave.

you start with you. as an individual, you have absolutely no control over the course of events around you. but you have every bit of control over how you choose to respond and how you choose to represent the cause to which you adhere. if you can do that and manage to get enough of your allies to do the same, then you have nothing to be ashamed of regardless of the success or failure of your cause. I'm not saying that as an open proponent or opponent of your movement; it's true for any would-be movement in this society.

I'll get back to the rest in a bit (watching a movie, and just dropping in occasionally out of curiosity), but this statement is amiss.

No one group is seeking hate crime legislation, nor is represented over and above another. This level of legislation applies to you if you're black, white, spanish, male, female, straight, gay, christian, muslim...anything. It's not special punishment for an attack on any one group...it's acting as a deterrent on hate crimes for anyone based on any criteria. If you think it especially applies to one group more than another, then perhaps it's you holding the bias (or feel no need for such protection of whatever group you most closely define your person by, or are seeing a disproportionate amount of hatred enacted towards the group you feel it applies to).

You want equality by being treated differently? Does not compute.



Those actions ARE punished already under laws without the need for 'hate crime' legislation. Hate crime laws, again, punish thought and not actions.



She's targeted because she is seen as weak. You think someone would try the same shit against someone like an NFL linebacker or UFC fighter or even just some big, corn fed mother fucker? I'll tell you what. I'll side with you on this argument as long as you're willing to say that gay people in general are weak and unable to take care of themselves and that's why they need legislation like his to protect them from the big, bad, mean ole world.

Anyhow...Sammich and company, I just wanted to mention that this was never a "gay rights" discussion. Somehow it always comes down to that on here, but that really wasn't how I came at this thread.

Do I think homos are singled out for violence? Yup. Do I think they're the most in need of protection? Nope. Do I think gay pride parades and flaming fags are an eyesore? Yup. Does that matter right now? Nope.

The whole reason I entered this fray was the headline on the front page, and the implication that hate crime laws were designed to protect pedophiles from retaliation, or at the very least designed with provisions allowing this in mind.

I came to point out that that is clearly not the case, and technicalities won't serve as gateways for pedophiles to seek recourse (that's right, that's how it all started: the difficulty of defining 'sexuality' legally). Pedophilia does not equal 'sexuality' any more than 'cannibal' is equal to 'chef'.

It really doesn't matter who I feel needs this sort of legal recourse, or who your government finds most in need (although, I think it has more to do with anti-muslim and perhaps even anti-mexican acts than homos, truth be told).

My issue was the bullshit way it was addressed. Blatant lies and skewed implications are never a healthy way to initiate dialogue. The sad part is, this is how a great portion of your population gets their 'news'. Declaring that Obama is a pedophile supporter has no more to do with the legislation than telling you what I had for dinner this evening.

That's the issue. Whether or not a mincing faggot makes for a choice target to beat down is irrelevant.

Did I say Obama was a pedophile supporter? No, I did not. I said that there were concerns with this law that Obama and his administration were seemingly ignoring and that this (like the ACORN child hooker scandal and the hiring of a safe schools czar who encouraged teenaged boys to have sex with male teachers). That was, I said, basically "winking at" the threat of pedophilia.



A couple of hours later....



Ah, hypocrisy, thy name is Klinton....

Mmmhmmm...the headline was a picture of Obama all 'thumbs up' superimposed on a pro pedophile protest, accompanied with the text "Obama's fans in NAMBLA" and "Pedophile Rights?"....but there was no implication on your part? The thread is labeled "Pedophile Protection Act".

Either you're completely at ease with being duplicitous...or you've been watching far too much Faux News and can't see the difference between simply reporting the news, and skewing it all out of true.




It's not hypocritical. I told you I wanted to hear something specific from you. This is possible while discussing tangent issues with others.

or is it...

Interesting. Only what does all this have to do with the North American Marlon Brando Look-Alikes? Am I missing something here?

Only a sense of humor.

I thought that was common knowledge.

I'm going to have to look into your report, and the sponsors behind it...as the agenda is pretty clear. The numbers don't match up, as "according to the FBI, 61% of rape victims are under age 18, and 29% are younger than 11. Generally accepted academic studies say one out of every four women was sexually molested by an adult before she was 18. For men: 1 out of 10." (some quick googling)

Clearly, being given to bullshit and skewed presentation though...you'll believe whatever you wish regardless of fact.

EDIT: Everything you wanted to know about pedophilia by a non biased source.

And with that, I'm done with this ridiculous debate. I can't believe I'm sitting here pouring over articles about kiddie rapists just to argue with you fucknuts (I now know more about this shit than I ever needed or wanted). This is fucking absurd.

If you genuinely gave a shit one way or another, you would be the ones digging up facts, rather than resorting to inflammatory bullshit and juvenile discourse.

Youre a bit over emotional klinton. I think the fact the Dems have lumped you gay guys in with the pedophiles has you upset.

Say basams did you photoshop Obama with the Nambla background or is G-man doing his own photoshops these days?

Actually, no. The "generally accepted" statistic is that 1 in 4 college women have either been raped or suffered attempted rape at some point in their lives. Furthermore, 57% of the women were on dates at the time. Therefore, given the age at which most women begin dating, the odds would seem to indicate that more of the women are 18, near 18, or older than 18.

Also, at least one basis for that statistic was a Cornell University study where the professor (Andrea Parrot) so expanded the definition of "rape" beyond what is considered the legal definition that she rendered the statistic meaningless:

• Dr. Andrea Parrot, chair of the Cornell University Coalition Advocating Rape Education and author of Sexual Assault on Campus, begins her date rape prevention manual with the words, "Any sexual intercourse without mutual desire is a form of rape. Anyone who is psychologically or physically pressured into sexual contact on any occasion is as much a victim as the person who is attacked in the streets"

I was a student at Cornell at the time and worked on a journal that covered the professors research. Therefore, I am familiar with the professor and her methodology. That professor called pretty much any sex that wasn't initiated by the woman as "rape," including sex resulting from the man, basically, "begging" the female for sex (ie, a "pity fuck").

what are you on about now?