OT: The “Radical” Gay Agenda in California Public Schools

[scaredyclassic]

i think it was clear to people not so long ago that allowing interracial couples to adopt was in general a bad idea. perahps it still is viewed that way.

if so, it’s only because of society’s apprehension that society in general will view the family situation as deviant.

the same with gay families.

there is no rational relationship between an interracial family’s racial makeup and the wuality of the parenting.

there may perhaps be no rational relationship between a gay family’s sexual makeupa nd the quality of the parenting.

but to assert it as fact, that it is less preferable, is ina way, to make it so, since it helps perpetuate’s a society that sees such groups as effed up in some way…

[scaredyclassic]

[quote=spdrun]Speaking for myself personally, I don’t think the legal concept of “hate crimes” should exist at all. I think whatever happens (assault, mayhem, murder, etc) should be tried as the offense itself and punished appropriately, subject to a judge’s discretion. Motives are less important than actions, and the actions should be punished.[/quote]

you be tripping. motive matters. the type of victim matters.

we punish people who hurt kids, old people, cops, different. kill a cop, a certain class of individual, and society might want to give you the death penalty. why? there’s a particularly flagrant disregard for the law in killing a police officer. there’s particular societal deviance, an intrinsic meanness, in raping say a 7 year old , or a 97 year old, as opposed to a 27 year old woman (or man).

it is perfectly justifiable to pick out certain groups as crime victims and give them additional levels of protection, in the abstract sense that additional punishment is any form of actual protection.

which it probably isn’t. but at least it shows we give a damn about hurting a vulnerable, or fringe or other group with significant social meaning..

[spdrun]

That’s why I said that the sentencing judge should have some discretion. This being said, I don’t actually think that killing a cop should be considered worse than any other murder. Not until cops are routinely subjected to much higher punishments for crimes committed by them in the line of duty, which isn’t the case right now. Fair is fair.

Personally, I’d be OK with a general sentence of say 15 (25 in particularly heinous cases) to life for murder, with parole boards having discretion to decide on release depending on how the convict’s rehabilitation is going.

Death penalty should either be abolished or reserved for military, police, and government officials who misbehave flagrantly. (i.e. the cops in NM who were basically party to the repeated rape of some poor man, or people like Lt. Calley of My Lai infamy) Maybe also for convicts that murder a guard or kill during an escape attempt, but that’s about it.

[NotCranky]

One thing I will question about Paramount’s video of the little girl with the essay.
In it she claimed that she had been to the gay pride parade….

I have never been, but I have heard things that make me believe some parts of these parades are similar to “hostile environments” in a sort of Human Resources lingo kind of way. Of course, it’s not like work in that you don’t have to go and nobody there controls your employment, but it might be inappropriate to take a kid?

Kind of like Mardi Gras ….is it appropriate to take kids to Mardi Gras?

Maybe I am wrong? I know some of you go to the parade. Is it suitable for kids?
For those who haven’t been, from what you might have heard about it does it seem suitable for kids?

[njtosd]

[quote=spdrun]That’s why I said that the sentencing judge should have some discretion. This being said, I don’t actually think that killing a cop should be considered worse than any other murder. Not until cops are routinely subjected to much higher punishments for crimes committed by them in the line of duty, which isn’t the case right now. Fair is fair.

Personally, I’d be OK with a general sentence of say 15 (25 in particularly heinous cases) to life for murder, with parole boards having discretion to decide on release depending on how the convict’s rehabilitation is going.

Death penalty should either be abolished or reserved for military, police, and government officials who misbehave flagrantly. (i.e. the cops in NM who were basically party to the repeated rape of some poor man, or people like Lt. Calley of My Lai infamy) Maybe also for convicts that murder a guard or kill during an escape attempt, but that’s about it.[/quote]

I’m not sure whether you are young, or heartless or both. Don’t you have anyone in your life whose loss would enrage you? 15 years for murder, with a possible reduction for rehab? It sounds like you don’t understand what loss is. I’m not in favor of the death penalty, but you have to understand that laws are made with people in mind who aren’t robots.

[spdrun]

Justice should be rehabilitative, not based on rage. Or should we go back to midnight lynchings where the victim’s family strings the perp up from the nearest oak tree?

I didn’t say 15 years with a possible reduction for rehab. I said 15-life, meaning fifteen years hard time minimum, with possibility of parole every ten years after that, depending on state of rehabilitation.

Note that possibility of parole doesn’t mean actuality. Look at Charles Manson, who’s been up for parole several times, and each time the pardons board said “no.”

I’m the opposite of heartless. I’m a bleeding-heart, criminal-hugging, pinko liberal in this respect.

[paramount]

[quote=6packscaredy][quote=paramount]scaredy, please allow me to clarify….

I’m not opposed to gay marriage
I’m not opposed to gay adoption
I am opposed to gays being recognized as a minority of any type…
I do think the gay agenda should be kept out of elem school curriculums

…[/quote]

ok. What about gays as a recognized group for purposes of a hate crime? can they be recognized as a minority for that?

radical, man.[/quote]

No.

I am with spdrun on this issue.

The idea of hate crimes is part of some socialist/communist/progressive agenda somewhere.

hate crimes are bogus, period.

Jamie Glazov, PhD:

“Hate-crime” legislation is the ultimate socialist fantasy. That is because it fulfills the greatest socialist calling: to camouflage the hatred of life and of individuals with a loudly professed love of “humanity.” “Hate-crime” laws achieve what socialism-in-practice achieved throughout the 20th century: the dehumanization and extermination of large parts of the human race.

The key to “hate-crime” legislation is that certain groups of people are protected, while others are not. Because these laws have a socialist agenda, it is no big surprise that class hatred does not fall within its categories of protection. Socialism, after all, is a direct repudiation of the Tenth Commandment – “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s goods.” Instead, it stresses that the neighbor who owns more and better should not only be hated, but – in the best tradition of Stalin’s forced collectivization – eliminated.

Thus, when whites kill blacks, or when heterosexuals kill homosexuals, “hate-crimes” are now considered to have taken place. But when Kathleen Soliah is charged with placing pipe bombs beneath two randomly selected Los Angeles police cars, this is considered a testament of revolutionary courage. That is because, when she was a member of the Symbionese Liberation Army (SLA) 24 years ago, Soliah despised capitalism and hoped to build class equality. The police, who were the protectors of the fascist patriarchy, had to be exterminated.

So too, if you are black and kill whites, you are also, like Soliah, not engaging in “hate-crime.” The murder of the 8-year-old white boy Kevin Shifflett in Alexandria, Va. in April, 2000, is a sad reminder of this reality. Shifflett was murdered by a black male who slit the youngster’s throat while screaming racial epithets at him. Unlike the killings of blacks by whites, this murder was not seen as a “hate-crime,” nor did the press even refer to it as a racial crime. The racial identities of the victim and murderer were suppressed.

This phenomenon is very much about the socialist implementation of “thought crimes.” People are trained to think “correctly.” And this ends up spawning the ideal socialist reality, in which, as George Orwell put it in Animal Farm: “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”

In Hating Whitey, David Horowitz crystallizes the breeding ground for “hate-crime” laws. He demonstrates the double standard in American society when it comes to the toleration of hatred, revealing how everyone is taught and expected to be inclusive and tolerant toward all ethnic groups – except, of course, towards “whitey.”

Horowitz shows how, in the university curricula throughout the country, the most politically correct version of history and society now entails the pedagogy that white people are evil. In his essay on bell hooks (lowercase letters her own elusive social statement), Horowitz reveals how the Distinguished Professor of English at the City College of New York epitomizes the license to hate white people. One of the cult-leaders of political correctness, hooks has written an essay in which she revels in a fantasy about killing an anonymous white male on an airplane. She says that she feels a “homicidal malice” and affirms that, “Had I killed the white man whose behavior evoked the rage, I feel that it would have been caused by the madness engendered by a pathological context.” She explains how those blacks who do not want to murder whites are victims of a false consciousness. “Blacks who lack a proper killing rage,” she writes, “are merely victims.”

Horowitz observes that if hooks killed the white man, someone else would ultimately have to be responsible, because: “even if she had done it, she did not do it. In fact white people did it.”

In reflecting on these phenomena, we come to understand the origins and objectives of “hate-crime” legislation. As Horowitz shows, the agenda is founded on Marxism, a philosophy that constructs a paradigm of society being divided between oppressors and victims. And it is precisely that vision that sees a social utopia being possible only after the extermination of certain groups.

Thus, “hate-crime” legislation is the ultimate socialist fantasy. Genocide cannot occur without hatred, and hatred cannot effectively engender its killing machines without camouflaging itself as love.

[scaredyclassic]

not really a critique of hate crime legislation per se, but instead that it is being applied unequally that is, we don’t charge blacks with hate crimes on whites…

http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Knockout-Game-Assault-Arrests-Brooklyn-NYPD-233001891.html

but we do…

black kids attack white jewish guy in NYC.

this knockout thing has the feel of end time anarchy…

i guess probably affirmative action and hate crime views are going to line up pretty close…perhaps hate crimes against gays legislation will phase out as more and more people in normal society feel gays are ok to remain living and don’t have to be killed.

[spdrun]

Would the knockout thing have been any less heinous if it were white-on-white violence — just some good old droogs looking to give a tolchock in the rot in “A Clockwork Orange?” Incidentally, it’s nothing new either — “happy slapping” was a thing in London ten years ago.

The hate crime charges are just stupid — third-degree assault already carries a year in county jail. Where “county jail” likely means Riker’s Island. No personal experience with the place, but I’ve read that it’s not a nice place to spend a day in, let alone a year.

[scaredyclassic]

no, white on white would be bad too, but, it does not mean that hate crime laws are not rationally related to a legitimate state interest (as the above post implies), or are part of a marxist scheme, or even inappropriate.

it’s not just about rehabilitation; criminal laws are intrinsically about sending a message to society about how we want society to be.

it is called…deterrence…

[spdrun]

If the prospect of a year on Rikers Island doesn’t deter such insane stupidity, nothing will.

I’m strongly for simplification of laws and reduction of overly long sentences — it’s a national shame and disgrace that we keep almost one per cent of our population in prison at any one time. Plus it costs taxpayer money that would be better spent on education and creating career opportunities.

The point is that punching random people in the face is unacceptable, and a year in prison should do well to get that point across without going to excessive measures.

[scaredyclassic]

well, see, sneaking up on someone and punching them in the face is a lot worse than saying, punching a fellow ina bar….and it’s also a lot worse if the other person is vulnerable. and it’s kidn of the icing on the cake if you look for a gay dude, or a jewish dude.

[spdrun]

.

[spdrun]

Correct — random assault is pretty bad.

Would it have been better if they sucker-punched him because they didn’t like the color of his shirt, his Rolex watch, or the car he drove? I’m honestly not sure if they were looking for anyone in particular, or just happened to sucker-punch the first poor sod they came upon.

I fail to see the point of additional charges. Punching someone in a bar fight where no one ends up seriously hurt will likely net you a fine and maybe some community service. A year on Rikers Island is quite a step up from that — no need to go overboard.

[FlyerInHi]

[quote=svelte][quote=6packscaredy]
you guys seen the video of the 18 year old engineering student from iowa raised by two moms testifying before iowa lawmakers on his family? it was pretty compelling. i’ll try to dig it up. kinda makes one woder about the “in generals” what may be better are perhaps subsumed by the compellingness of the individuals…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMLZO-sObzQ%5B/quote%5D

That is an amazing video. Thank you for sharing.

And thanks to that young man for so eloquently speaking those thoughts.[/quote]

I had no idea who Zach Wahls was. He even talked at the Democratic convention. I must have been busy working that day.

He doesn’t only give prepared speeches that other people have written. At such a young age, he can speak extemporaneously better than 50 year olds. Excellent vocabulary and command of language and issues.
He has that natural ability to talk fast and clearly. You don’t have to agree to him, but you’ve got to admire his talents.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bq4cvvx1hAA

His parents did a super job bringing up a smart, decent, well-adjusted son.

I’m feeling a little small today because my achievements just don’t compare.

[Author]

Posts