On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 19:07:11 -0400, Matt Silberstein

<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 16:41:07 -0500, in alt.atheism ,

On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 15:30:12 -0400, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 12:00:32 -0500, in alt.atheism ,

On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 21:19:09 -0400, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 03:00:33 -0500, in alt.atheism ,

On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 00:31:17 -0700, johac
<jhachm...@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:

Nice endorsement Fred.

Gimmie a freaking break.
All of a sudden something Westboro Baptist says is credible?
Because it might hurt a Republican?
The only thing they had to do was send a letter and make it public?
Besides the whole gay rights thing is just silly.
For instance, there isn't a state in the union that denies gays the
right to marry.

Just not each other. Do you actually not understand the term "gay
marriage"?

Yes I do.
It was a factual statement though loaded down with b.s.

Why did you load your statement with b.s.?

Looking for comments about the meanings of things we hear as opposed
to what is actually being said.

But that's politics you see.
Make a statement that cannot be disputed regarding the truth of it but
one that does not address the real issues.

Why do you do that?

Seeking opinions.
Politicians say a lot without saying much.
We don't often analyze what they say as far as real meaning goes.
They say things we want to hear, things that are pleasant to the ear
and appeal to emotion but are basically meaningless.
I'm trying to put together all the stock, meaningless political
phrases I've heard all my life.

But they keep harping on and on about being denied the right to do so.
I don't even know what to think about it anymore.

It must get harder and harder to pretend. As a general rule gay rights
activists want a few reasonable things:

To pretend what?

That your statements are sensible. You have just admitted they were
b.s.

Read above.
The statement "gays can get married in any state" is accurate.

And meaningless and not relevant to any of the actual political
issues. You are deliberately saying things that don't mean what they
appear to mean, doing the thing you seem to complain about.

Exactly.
It was intentional and I would have thought that was obvious.

But it isn't sensible in that it isn't really addressing the issues
involved in the debate over gay marriage.

Yep.

It's a cheap statement but many others that we hear or read are
designed to deceive or distract or make it seem as though a problem
does or does not exist.
And they are just as cheap as the statement about gay marriage but we
don't always recognize it.

1) Freedom from anti-gay violence. This means not just hate crime
laws, but actual response from the police when gays are attacked.

We are already seeing the negative results of "hate crime" laws.
We now have thought crime.
It was inevitable.

Sorry, but there is a very long history of using intent as part of the
determinant for criminal status. One of the deceptions involved in
this issue is the "shock" at this change. Yet possession with intent
to sell, 1st degree murder, fraud, etc. all have intent as part of the
crime. No, there is no sudden addition of thought crime.

If a racist ties a noose and hangs it in his place of work should that
be a hate crime?

Quite possibly. It is not a thought crime, it is a crime of action
where the intent plays a role.

Should the flying of a Confederate battle flag be a hate crime?

Probably not. What is your point? That laws have gradation and gray
(pardon the pun) areas?

Should any opinion about any group or individual without a direct
threat of violence be a hate crime?

As worded, no. But neither hanging a noose or a flag is an opinion,
they are *acts*.

Both are acts expressing opinions.

Carrying a poster expressing an unfavorable or hateful opinion is also
an act.
Putting up a billboard, printing and passing out flyers or taking out
political adds on tv or the radio that have the appearance of hate
according to some are also acts.
Two groups with opposing opinions standing across the street from one
another shouting angry, hateful words back and forth are also
committing acts.
In the U.S. it is legal to curse a police officer, it is legal to tell
him that you hate all cops and though swinging at him is illegal it is
not a hate crime.
Why would the noose without intent to use it on somebody be a hate
crime?
Is it only certain people or groups we are not allowed to hate or does
it include everybody no matter the reason for the hate?

And, again, the use of intent as part of the crime is
deeply embedded in our legal system. Your complaint about thought
crimes was misguided.

No, the concern is not misguided.
Certain people have decided that certain expressions are in fact hate
crimes and frankly if a guy can get ten extra years for committing an
act against somebody because he belongs to a certain group the perp
hates why wouldn't he get the extra ten anyway?

On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 19:07:11 -0400, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 16:41:07 -0500, in alt.atheism ,

On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 15:30:12 -0400, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 12:00:32 -0500, in alt.atheism ,

On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 21:19:09 -0400, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 03:00:33 -0500, in alt.atheism ,

On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 00:31:17 -0700, johac
<jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:

Nice endorsement Fred.

Gimmie a freaking break.
All of a sudden something Westboro Baptist says is credible?
Because it might hurt a Republican?
The only thing they had to do was send a letter and make it public?
Besides the whole gay rights thing is just silly.
For instance, there isn't a state in the union that denies gays the
right to marry.

Just not each other. Do you actually not understand the term "gay
marriage"?

Yes I do.
It was a factual statement though loaded down with b.s.

Why did you load your statement with b.s.?

Looking for comments about the meanings of things we hear as opposed
to what is actually being said.

But that's politics you see.
Make a statement that cannot be disputed regarding the truth of it but
one that does not address the real issues.

Why do you do that?

Seeking opinions.
Politicians say a lot without saying much.
We don't often analyze what they say as far as real meaning goes.
They say things we want to hear, things that are pleasant to the ear
and appeal to emotion but are basically meaningless.
I'm trying to put together all the stock, meaningless political
phrases I've heard all my life.

But they keep harping on and on about being denied the right to do so.
I don't even know what to think about it anymore.

It must get harder and harder to pretend. As a general rule gay rights
activists want a few reasonable things:

To pretend what?

That your statements are sensible. You have just admitted they were
b.s.

Read above.
The statement "gays can get married in any state" is accurate.

And meaningless and not relevant to any of the actual political
issues. You are deliberately saying things that don't mean what they
appear to mean, doing the thing you seem to complain about.

Exactly.
It was intentional and I would have thought that was obvious.

But it isn't sensible in that it isn't really addressing the issues
involved in the debate over gay marriage.

Yep.

It's a cheap statement but many others that we hear or read are
designed to deceive or distract or make it seem as though a problem
does or does not exist.
And they are just as cheap as the statement about gay marriage but we
don't always recognize it.

1) Freedom from anti-gay violence. This means not just hate crime
laws, but actual response from the police when gays are attacked.

We are already seeing the negative results of "hate crime" laws.
We now have thought crime.
It was inevitable.

Sorry, but there is a very long history of using intent as part of the
determinant for criminal status. One of the deceptions involved in
this issue is the "shock" at this change. Yet possession with intent
to sell, 1st degree murder, fraud, etc. all have intent as part of the
crime. No, there is no sudden addition of thought crime.

If a racist ties a noose and hangs it in his place of work should that
be a hate crime?

Quite possibly. It is not a thought crime, it is a crime of action
where the intent plays a role.

Should the flying of a Confederate battle flag be a hate crime?

Probably not. What is your point? That laws have gradation and gray
(pardon the pun) areas?

Should any opinion about any group or individual without a direct
threat of violence be a hate crime?

As worded, no. But neither hanging a noose or a flag is an opinion,
they are *acts*.

Both are acts expressing opinions.

Carrying a poster expressing an unfavorable or hateful opinion is also
an act.

Putting up a billboard, printing and passing out flyers or taking out
political adds on tv or the radio that have the appearance of hate
according to some are also acts.

Two groups with opposing opinions standing across the street from one
another shouting angry, hateful words back and forth are also
committing acts.

In the U.S. it is legal to curse a police officer, it is legal to tell
him that you hate all cops and though swinging at him is illegal it is
not a hate crime.

Why would the noose without intent to use it on somebody be a hate
crime?

Is it only certain people or groups we are not allowed to hate or does
it include everybody no matter the reason for the hate?

And, again, the use of intent as part of the crime is
deeply embedded in our legal system. Your complaint about thought
crimes was misguided.

No, the concern is not misguided.

Certain people

have decided that certain expressions

are in fact hate
crimes and frankly if a guy can get ten extra years for committing an
act against somebody because he belongs to a certain group the perp
hates why wouldn't he get the extra ten anyway?

Can a man be charged with a hate crime for beating his wife or a wife
for striking her husband?

Again, is it more a matter of who we hate rather than the hate alone?

The problem is the definition of "hate crime" has been expanded as
expected and is being used as a political tool to silence opinion.
Is that a good thing?

2) Freedom from workplace/housing/etc. discrimination.

3) Freedom to marry the adult of their choice (when the desire is
reciprocated, in case that was not obvious).

We are apparently not going to see that in our lifetimes.

Perhaps, it is not clear. But that was not the point, was it? You made
some statement about gay rights and I was trying to make the goals
clear.

People have a tendency to see it as a moral or religious issue rather
than a legal one.
I have yet to see a good legal argument against it it fact.

4) Reasonable respect for the existence and preferences, as opposed to
people being taught that they are unnatural, etc.


Tremendous progress has been made on some of these issues over the
last 40 years, but there is still more to do.

Yes.

So what was your point?

Figure it out.

If it is not worth your while to explain it is probably not worth my
while to find out.

I did explain it.