On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 07:59:36 -0800, Smitty Two
wrote:

In article ,
" wrote:

Stormin Mormon wrote:
My people were persecuted in the 1800s, and so I want

That's another reason why you it's not permitted to ridicule you.

reparations! Anyone who criticizes a Mormon is committing a
hate crime?

I don't like the concept of hate crimes.

As opposed to a "love crime"? ) That's another p.c. thought that is
totally ridiculous....a criminal assaults or kills someone randomly and
it is not as bad an act as choosing someone on the basis of some
demographic indentifier? Insane.

I don't write letters to legislators about it but I'm against
establishing hate crimes or maintaining the old ones, for your reason
and others, but the concept is far from insane.

The random crimes you refer to, at least the ones committed in the
heat of anger, are thought to be impossible to stop. Each criminal
has his own motives and his own gripe with the person he hurts, and
though each criminal that is caught and convicted it's hoped can be
punished enough to discourage *him*, or just kept out of circulation,
the lesson conveyed even by stern punishment doesn't affect other
angry people.

But it is, in some cases was, considered okay in some circles to lynch
a black man who is thought to leer at a white girl, to lynch a black
man who steals a sandwich, to beat up a homosexual even to the point
of death sometimes, etc. And giving the same punishment as for
similar crimes, it's thought, doesn't send the message sufficiently
that such the police and prosecutors won't tolerate such crimes
anymore.

I used to be against hate crime legislation, and I thought I was
because it seemed to be about punishing thoughts, punishing people for
having the wrong thoughts, which seemed wrong to me. But there are
already other crimes that punish thoughts, like conspiracy, even
though that also requires one overt act. Upon more thought I realized
that, I think, people want hate crime laws because they are angry at
previous similar crimes, especially the ones where no one was ever
caught or worse yet, they knew who did it, but didn't consider it
worthy of prosecution, because the victim was Black or an Indian or a
homosexual, or not so many years back, Irish or an Italian or a Jew.
And they figured, the victim probably deserved it, because "they're
all no good". So, I think, those who want there to be hate crimes are
fed up, and they want to punish those they catch now more for the sake
of all those who unfairly went unpunished in the past. And I object
to that.

But none of this is insane or even unreasonable.

If you belonged to a group that was hated and had been targeted over
and over and maybe still was, you'd understand.

I'm waiting to turn on the news some day and hear that a guilty person
was killed. Somehow it's always innocent ones that get it. Doesn't seem
statistically possible.

They don't use the word "guilty" but I think they have a lot of crimes
where they also don't say innocent. Wholesale drug deals gone bad,
retail drug deals gone bad, one mob family or subfamily killing
members of the other. Even people killing their ex-boss because
they were fired. They don't refer to the boss as guilty, but I don't
think they use the word innocent either when the victim is targeted
for something he actually did, even if was legal to do it.

For example the guy in Florida about 2 days ago who killed his boss
from 2 years ago, I heard because he was unable to collect
unemployment insurance, probably because the boss insisted he was
fired for cause. Even though it might have been true and there was
good cause to fire him, the boss wasn't referred to as innocent.
That's reserved afaict for people who know nothing about, did nothing
to the killer and they still get killed.

Agreed. I'd like to see criminals get less punish for love
crimes. It only carries forth the twisted logic of our
elected reps.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


wrote in message
m...
As opposed to a "love crime"? ) That's another p.c.
thought that is
totally ridiculous....a criminal assaults or kills someone
randomly and
it is not as bad an act as choosing someone on the basis of
some
demographic indentifier? Insane.

You might be able to find a lawyer who would take that one
on.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"The Daring Dufas" wrote in
message ...
Stormin Mormon wrote:
My people were persecuted in the 1800s, and so I want
reparations! Anyone who criticizes a Mormon is committing
a
hate crime?


I got picked on in school, shouldn't I get respirations[sic]
from the board of education?

TDD

On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 13:44:37 -0600, Caesar Romano wrote:

I noticed some years ago that the word "problem" seems to have fallen
out of favor and dropped from the popular lexicon. There are very few
(if any) problems now, just "issues".

Did anyone else notice the change? Any idea why it occurred so
suddenly and pervasively? Is it political correctness?

How about "multi-perpetrator rape" instead of "gang rape" because gang rape
is racist? I kid you not:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...e-emotive.html
or
http://xrl.in/3plp

On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 13:44:37 -0600, Caesar Romano
wrote:

I noticed some years ago that the word "problem" seems to have fallen
out of favor and dropped from the popular lexicon. There are very few
(if any) problems now, just "issues".

Did anyone else notice the change? Any idea why it occurred so
suddenly and pervasively? Is it political correctness?

I've been curious about it for a long time and thought I would get
some opinions from a NG that I consider populated by fairly articulate
and thoughtful people.

I hope no one has a problem with this OT post :-)


"Problem" has a negative meaning like something is wrong that may not
have a solution. "Issue" sounds like an anomaly that can be
corrected. At least at the workplace, never present a problem (or
issue) which you do not have a suggestion for a fix else you may be
labeled as a "problem" and not a "problem solver."

HeyBub wrote:
Caesar Romano wrote:
I noticed some years ago that the word "problem" seems to have fallen
out of favor and dropped from the popular lexicon. There are very few
(if any) problems now, just "issues".

Did anyone else notice the change? Any idea why it occurred so
suddenly and pervasively? Is it political correctness?

I've been curious about it for a long time and thought I would get
some opinions from a NG that I consider populated by fairly articulate
and thoughtful people.

I hope no one has a problem with this OT post :-)

Whether it's called an "issue" or a "problem," if it can be fixed with
money, it's actually neither. It's an "expense."



I have problems with my issues,.... or is it the other way around?
-me wanders off muttering to myself-

TDD

Kuskokwim wrote:
On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 13:44:37 -0600, Caesar Romano wrote:

I noticed some years ago that the word "problem" seems to have fallen
out of favor and dropped from the popular lexicon. There are very few
(if any) problems now, just "issues".

Did anyone else notice the change? Any idea why it occurred so
suddenly and pervasively? Is it political correctness?

How about "multi-perpetrator rape" instead of "gang rape" because gang rape
is racist? I kid you not:

Wouldn't that be a man caused disaster too?
What would you call a female suicide bombing?
A woman caused disaster?

TDD