Feds Charge White Man With Hate Crime In First ‘Knockout Game’ Prosecution

What a retarded example.

You are comparing racists with sociopaths and making it out as though I think racists are not sociopaths. I especially am tiring of you trying to get an irrational response by conjuring the image of my mother being murdered.

How can you expect to be taken seriously? Really, don't go wondering why I just start getting really flippant.

ginwilly said:

And all I asked was are you for or against them. I see you don't know what rhetorical means. Do you claim that you actually answered this?

edit: you don't have to answer it if it makes you uncomfortable, you will get called racist by the simpletons for not agreeing. You can't however, claim you answered it and be honest at the same time.

Click to expand...

Degree

Is

Determined

By

Motive

abandonconflict said:

Degree

Is

Determined

By

Motive

Click to expand...

LOL, you skeered aintcha.

Are you willing to place a higher degree on a crime based on skin color? Many are, and claim it in the name of Justice.

Let me put it this way.

Do you think there is a difference between someone murdering your mother over race and you murdering that person months later in a well planned retaliation?

abandonconflict said:

Let me put it this way.

Do you think there is a difference between someone murdering your mother over race and you murdering that person months later in a well planned retaliation?

Click to expand...

I'll answer your question when you answer mine.

Are you for or against hate crimes? I'm for.... I'm against. It's not rhetorical btw.

ginwilly said:

I'll answer your question when you answer mine.

Are you for or against hate crimes?

Click to expand...

I already told you, I wasn't defending the rationale. That implies that I am against the particular identifier.

So I did answer you.

In fact, my answer was even more concise because I also implied that I think sociopaths should be treated differently and punished more harshly than someone who commits a crime of passion. Furthermore, I also clearly pointed out that racists are sociopathic.

Therefore I did answer you.

Now you are going to proceed to isolate the tiny fragment of my complete argument and use it to distort everything I am actually saying.

That is why I hate your stupid fucking rhetorical questions.

abandonconflict said:

Now you are going to proceed to isolate the tiny fragment of my complete argument and use it to distort everything I am actually saying.

Click to expand...

yet that is the only way you and others here with whom you often agree debate or converse.

abandonconflict said:

I already told you, I wasn't defending the rationale. That implies that I am against the particular identifier.

So I did answer you.

In fact, my answer was even more concise because I also implied that I think sociopaths should be treated differently and punished more harshly than someone who commits a crime of passion. Furthermore, I also clearly pointed out that racists are sociopathic.

Therefore I did answer you.

Now you are going to proceed to isolate the tiny fragment of my complete argument and use it to distort everything I am actually saying.

That is why I hate your stupid fucking rhetorical questions.

Click to expand...

First, look up the definition of rhetorical please, you're killing me.

I'm not defending it, just explaining it is a neutral position to most folks. But thanks for finally answering. I try to read your words and go off what they mean, not what I THINK you meant, that would make me you.

In fairness I'll answer your question now. Under hate crime legislation, it would have to be determined since race played a part in the first murder, it would also have to be determined if it played a role in the 2nd. Did I kill them because they killed my mother or because they killed my mother AND were a different race. I'm not in favor of putting juries in that position.

And don't worry, you'll get called racist for being against hate crimes, but by people who call everyone a racist who disagrees with their agenda.

ginwilly said:

First, look up the definition of rhetorical please, you're killing me.

Thanks for finally answering

Click to expand...

I answered you immediately. You were just too fucking dense to pick up on it, because you wanted a simple yes or no, which you could then use to make your point.

In other words you were attempting to elicit a particular reply.

In other words it was a rhetorical question.

abandonconflict said:

I answered you immediately. You were just too fucking dense to pick up on it, because you wanted a simple yes or no, which you could then use to make your point.

In other words you were attempting to elicit a particular reply.

In other words it was a rhetorical question.

Click to expand...

for you

a : of, relating to, or concerned with rhetoric

b : employed for rhetorical effect; especially : asked merely for effect with no answer expected <a rhetorical question>

You could have said I'm for or against because...
What you said was I"m not defending, just defining, which is neutral. Agree?

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetorical_question

A rhetorical question is a figure of speech in the form of a question that is asked in order to make a point.[1] The question, a rhetorical device, is posed not to elicit a specific answer, but rather to encourage the listener to consider a message or viewpoint.

Click to expand...

This is from Wikipedia but oddly enough, it is verbatim the same definition that I found in my old philosophy 100 text book (A Concise Introduction to Logic) which I kept from my freshman year at the university.

http://books.google.com.pr/books/about/A_Concise_Introduction_to_Logic.html?id=Ikp2dGWT5O4C&redir_esc=y

abandonconflict said:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetorical_question



This is from Wikipedia but oddly enough, it is verbatim the same definition that I found in my old philosophy 100 text book (A Concise Introduction to Logic) which I kept from my freshman year at the university.

http://books.google.com.pr/books/about/A_Concise_Introduction_to_Logic.html?id=Ikp2dGWT5O4C&redir_esc=y

Click to expand...

LOL

A rhetorical question is a figure of speech in the form of a question that is asked in order to make a point.[1] The question, a rhetorical device, is posed not to elicit a specific answer, but rather to encourage the listener to consider a message or viewpoint.

You are sitting there reading the definition and still get it wrong. Kudos

Wow.

Your skull must be two inches thick.

You were not satisfied by my answer because you didn't want an actual answer. You wanted me to facilitate your point. This is a classic example of a rhetorical question. You're out of your element, shut the fuck up Donny.

Anyway it's been raining really hard the last couple days here but it finally cleared up so I'm going to go enjoy San Juan, Puerto Rico and leave you to your own lack of logic.

abandonconflict said:

Wow.

Your skull must be two inches thick.

Anyway it's been raining really hard the last couple days here but it finally cleared up so I'm going to go enjoy San Juan, Puerto Rico and leave you to your own lack of logic.

Click to expand...

Have a good day man, seriously. I have no ill will just because you call me thick over correcting your definitions.

I do have to admit you put a smile on my face when you insist "you want a yes or no" that's rhetorical, post the definition, and stick to your guns inspite of what you posted, then call ME thick because of it.

abandonconflict said:

If it is a "hate crime", it is the same charge plus a racial enhancer. Motive determines degree. A violent crime that is committed unprovoked simply because of demographic difference is much different from a violent crime committed because someone provoking it. It indicates a dangerous pattern and the likelihood of repeated incident. Whereas a provoked violent attack, while still a crime might be an isolated incident.

Click to expand...

Not true. Two crackers can try to kill each other. If one happened to be gay and lost, it becomes a hate crime. Hate is determined by protected class.

Hate Crime said:

The federal hate crimes law criminalizes certain acts of violence motivated by a victim’s actual or perceived race, color, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, disability, gender, or gender identity. This case is the first in Georgia to charge a violation of the sexual orientation provision of this federal hate crimes law.

Click to expand...

http://www.fbi.gov/atlanta/press-releases/2013/two-atlanta-men-plead-guilty-to-federal-hate-crime-against-gay-man

Meowlistenhere said:

The Obama administration charged 1000's of blacks of hate crimes in 2009? Or did 100's of racist black men beat the hell out of innocent white people just last year alone. The Obama administration had plenty of chances for a long time now, to make an example. What were they waiting for?

Click to expand...

Meowlistenhere said:

Meanwhile shit like this happens all the time and goes almost unnoticed. I suppose this makes me a right wing racist for posting this link. I was there with my family btw, and i did have my pistol on me. Thank god i wasn't forced to use it.
http://www.jrn.com/tmj4/news/126825018.html

Click to expand...

it's so tough being a white man, always having to dodge being assaulted by packs of unruly black mobs.

if you need a shoulder to cry on, i am here for you. as a fellow persecuted white male, i will understand your pain.

ginwilly said:

I'll never understand justice being based on skin color in an effort to squash racism.

If you think one family deserves more justice than another based on their skin color, congrats, you are part of the racial problems in this country.

Click to expand...

actually, racists like you are the racial problem in this country.

hate crimes protect all skin colors, not just some. that's something simple that even a simpleton like you should know.

Canna Sylvan said:

Hate is determined by protected class.

Click to expand...

no, hate is determined by motive and intent.

UncleBuck said:

no, hate is determined by motive and intent.

Click to expand...

Wrong, if there's no motive and the person happens to be black, jewish, gay, etc, they will label it as hate.

Also, it's not hate to kill whitey solely on being the white devil. That's called retribution for past discretions.

Canna Sylvan said:

Wrong, if there's no motive and the person happens to be black, jewish, gay, etc, they will label it as hate.

Also, it's not hate to kill whitey solely on being the white devil. That's called retribution for past discretions.

Click to expand...

take your retarded lies over to a white supremacist website. your analysis is fact free, unfounded, and cannot be cited because it is nothing but a series of retarded lies.