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

[FlyerInHi]

[quote=temeculaguy]But we are from Southern California, so we do not fit the stereotype. We’re crazy. Find me a traditional, conservative Southern Californian and you will have found me someone who moved here. Although not an absolute, sunshine and pretty people to look at kind of takes the hate out of you. Name the last car-flipping riot in San Diego. The 2007 wildfires in San Diego was the second largest evacuation in US history, almost nothing bad happened. Compare that to Katrina. We’re different, maybe not better or worse, but different.[/quote]

I moved to CA. Then moved away several times.

I don’t have strong convictions and allegiances to traditions. Generally, I think that people should have representation proportional to their numbers.

I’m not for repressing other people to protect my own group’s power. Go with the flow, let people have their day in the sun. Resistance is futile and only makes you bitter.

I don’t know want to end up like so many grumpy old men I gotta work with. People who always bitch about something.

[CA renter]

[quote=6packscaredy]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.[/quote]

IMHO, all violent crimes committed against innocent people are “hate crimes.” Why isn’t rape a hate crime? The perpetrators are clearly targeting certain types of people (usually women who are weaker than they are). And women have been oppressed every bit as much as gays, blacks, etc. throughout history.

ALL violent crimes committed against innocent, unsuspecting people should be punished in the most severe way. The types of people who commit these crimes, usually sociopaths, cannot be rehabilitated. We should get them off the streets permanently.

And, paramount, you’re way off base on the whole socialist thing. I’m a socialist, but detest the notion of “hate crimes” against a very narrow category of victims being categorized separately from any other similar crime.

[FlyerInHi]

CAr, I don’t see why you take exception to “hate crimes.”

Hate crimes laws allow prosecutors to seek enhanced punishment for hate crimes committed.

If people think that violent crimes that are not labeled “hate crimes” are not punished severely enough (as you seem to imply) then they can change the law.

[FlyerInHi]

I just read about this guy who killed another man for holding up a shop owner.

Is justice blind and factual when it comes to killing? Or do we make social judgments to protect some people?

[spdrun]

FlyerInHI, speaking for myself, I take exception because punishments in this country are TOO severe as it is, and it costs both taxes and lives. Existing punishments for violent crimes are enough.

Secondly, why establish protected classes? Is it really worse to injure someone because of their orientation or race, than to do so because you don’t like them for other reasons?

Is the Black guy beat up by another Black guy because he was wearing a Red Sox hat after the Yankees lost the Series any less worthy of justice than an Asian guy beat up by a White guy because of his race? I’d think not.

Random violence FOR WHATEVER REASON should in itself be an aggravating factor. If there was provocation or a crime previously committed, as in the case of a man who killed a robber, then that should be taken into account as mitigation. Same goes for a simple assault during (let’s say) a bar-fight.

[FlyerInHi]

There are enhanced punishments for certain crimes because we decided so.

I think some states have specific laws concerning financial fraud against the elderly and the disabled.

That doesn’t bother me.

[scaredyclassic]

[quote=spdrun]FlyerInHI, speaking for myself, I take exception because punishments in this country are TOO severe as it is, and it costs both taxes and lives. Existing punishments for violent crimes are enough.

Secondly, why establish protected classes? Is it really worse to injure someone because of their orientation or race, than to do so because you don’t like them for other reasons?

Is the Black guy beat up by another Black guy because he was wearing a Red Sox hat after the Yankees lost the Series any less worthy of justice than an Asian guy beat up by a White guy because of his race? I’d think not.

Random violence FOR WHATEVER REASON should in itself be an aggravating factor. If there was provocation or a crime previously committed, as in the case of a man who killed a robber, then that should be taken into account as mitigation. Same goes for a simple assault during (let’s say) a bar-fight.[/quote]

actually it may be a little worse to hurt someone solely because they are white or gay or some other protected class, not because one person is more “valued” than another, bt because racial hatred and hatred against homosexual is a particular social evil we might reasonably want to deter. it’s a little extra. enhancing the punishment doesnt mean we like gays morebut only that we are sending a message…

that is what criminal laws do….send messages to society.

if we put it in terms of a marketplace, it is information for rational actors to take in an d consider before deciding where to invest their capital…

[spdrun]

FlyerInHI: The difference is that those groups are often physically and mentally more vulnerable — thus crimes against them are seen as more unfair.

6packscaredy: My point is that ALL random violence should be deterred equally. If someone randomly punches me in the face, I really don’t care if it’s because of my religion, my location, my home town, or the color of my shirt.

[CA renter]

[quote=6packscaredy][quote=spdrun]FlyerInHI, speaking for myself, I take exception because punishments in this country are TOO severe as it is, and it costs both taxes and lives. Existing punishments for violent crimes are enough.

Secondly, why establish protected classes? Is it really worse to injure someone because of their orientation or race, than to do so because you don’t like them for other reasons?

Is the Black guy beat up by another Black guy because he was wearing a Red Sox hat after the Yankees lost the Series any less worthy of justice than an Asian guy beat up by a White guy because of his race? I’d think not.

Random violence FOR WHATEVER REASON should in itself be an aggravating factor. If there was provocation or a crime previously committed, as in the case of a man who killed a robber, then that should be taken into account as mitigation. Same goes for a simple assault during (let’s say) a bar-fight.[/quote]

actually it may be a little worse to hurt someone solely because they are white or gay or some other protected class, not because one person is more “valued” than another, bt because racial hatred and hatred against homosexual is a particular social evil we might reasonably want to deter. it’s a little extra. enhancing the punishment doesnt mean we like gays morebut only that we are sending a message…

that is what criminal laws do….send messages to society.

if we put it in terms of a marketplace, it is information for rational actors to take in an d consider before deciding where to invest their capital…[/quote]

Why do you think these crimes are any more “evil” than other violent crimes committed against random, innocent people? That’s why I have a problem with the whole “hate crime” issue — ALL of these types of crimes are equally reprehensible. The perpetrators should be punished very severely in ALL of these cases. No one class of victim should be exalted over another.

Like spdrun noted, it doesn’t matter if on is assaulted because of his/her race, gender, etc. Whether intentionally targeted for a particular trait or not, the crime is equally detestable as far as the victim is concerned.

[FlyerInHi]

[quote=6packscaredy]

actually it may be a little worse to hurt someone solely because they are white or gay or some other protected class, not because one person is more “valued” than another, bt because racial hatred and hatred against homosexual is a particular social evil we might reasonably want to deter. it’s a little extra. enhancing the punishment doesnt mean we like gays morebut only that we are sending a message…

that is what criminal laws do….send messages to society.

if we put it in terms of a marketplace, it is information for rational actors to take in an d consider before deciding where to invest their capital…[/quote]

I think that the message sending is very interesting. But isn’t that part of some agenda to bend the arc of the moral universe in a certain direction? I’m comfortable that it’s bending towards justice.

With regard to gay families, we already know that the end result will be full equality. So why bother resisting, unless one is bitter and resentful of change?

If we put it in terms of the marketplace, would we rather invest our capital on the ground floor of a growing phenomenon? Or do we want to get in late in the game? Even worse would to be to bet against the inevitable.

[FlyerInHi]

CAr, you make it sounds like crimes are not punished severely enough.

Let’s assume for a moment that you believe punishments fit the crimes.

Hate crimes can be punished more severely if prosecutors decide to bring up charges.

What’s your beef? You already have what you want.

If not, do you want punishments for non hate crimes upgraded to hate crimes levels?

[CA renter]

[quote=FlyerInHi]CAr, you make it sounds like crimes are not punished severely enough.

Let’s assume for a moment that you believe punishments fit the crimes.

Hate crimes can be punished more severely if prosecutors decide to bring up charges.

What’s your beef? You already have what you want.

If not, do you want punishments for non hate crimes upgraded to hate crimes levels?[/quote]

Yes, which would essentially mean that there is no separate category for “hate crimes.” ALL violent crimes against random, innocent victims are equally reprehensible.

[FlyerInHi]

Ok. Let’s say we make punishments for all crimes more severe to the level you want. Done.

Would you be OK with hate crimes being punishable even more severely?

[njtosd]

[quote=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.[/quote]

No. I get the impression that you like telling everyone how much you love the underdog, but mostly because you like people to think well of you. You work hard at it, at least on this board. Your posts bring to mind the following:

“It is easy to sympathize at a distance,’ said an old gentleman with a beard. ‘I value more the kind word that is spoken close to my ear.”

E.M. Forster

[spdrun]

It’s not a question of loving the underdog. It’s a question of keeping almost 1% of our population in prison not making economic or human-rights sense.

We’re talking something like $70 billion per annum not including costs of litigation. Halving that would reduce the national deficit by 5%. It would pay every American’s health insurance premium for half a month or buy every child under 18 an iPad 🙂

(Yeah, I realize it’s mostly not Fed money, but my point is to make a point.)

[Author]

Posts