Ass'd Press: Iran Gov't Says 1/2 of C19 Deaths Unreported

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, wolfriverjoe said:

The first one is a five year old article about certain sanctions continuing despite the nuke agreement.

Did you not understand what I asked?

One more time:

Do you have any reliable source that says Iran continued to pursue nukes in violation of the agreement?

Sorry. Ya got me there. I cannot quote a source you would find reliable.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

NO LEVEL OF SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE CAN EVER RISE TO ABSURDITY. IT MUST BE ABSOLUTE.

Very Soviet of you. Not the right answer. By your metric, a "religious test" would apply to every civil servant. I say let people believe what they will. The Flying Spaghetti Monster won't harm anyone.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

10 minutes ago, markharju said:

Yes different. There is an absurd level of separation of church and state (and busybody watchdog groups to make sure of it) in the US to the point where any religious remarks made in public are treated as a heinous scandal, whereas in the ME, having the wrong personal or religious preferences can get you hanged from a  crane, thrown off a building, beheaded with a knife, beheaded with det cord, geez...do I really have to go on?

That part is different. But the reliance on religion really isn't that much different. Many laws in the US based on religion.

Christianity is almost a requirement to hold any office of real power in the US. And I am sure a Muslim setting up shop in the Ron's neighbourhood is going to be greeted as a wonderful additional and not at all going to be harassed by local law enforcement. 

List goes on and on. I know Americans like to think themselves superior to all others, turns out you really are just the same.

Edited April 17, 2020 by SkyDekker

[gowlerk 2,283]

1 minute ago, markharju said:

Very Soviet of you. Not the right answer. By your metric, a "religious test" would apply to every civil servant. I say let people believe what they will. The Flying Spaghetti Monster won't harm anyone.

Individuals can believe whatever they want. States must not care what anyone believes. They are allowed to care what people do.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, gowlerk said:

Individuals can believe whatever they want. States must not care what anyone believes. They are allowed to care what people do.

This is why "Hate Crime" statutes are utterly unjust, for it is not enough to punish certain people for what  they do,they must be punished for what they think as well. As in Or-well.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

6 minutes ago, markharju said:

This is why "Hate Crime" statutes are utterly unjust, for it is not enough to punish certain people for what  they do,they must be punished for what they think as well. As in Or-well.

I don't have a problem with that. And many other statutes in your law books take what people think in mind with regards to the severity of a crime. In many cases what a person thought prior to committing an act is often the differentiator between committing a crime or not.

Killing a man in a fist-fight after he called your wife a whore is very different from killing a man because you don't like the colour of his skin.

Edited April 17, 2020 by SkyDekker

[billvon 3,131]

36 minutes ago, markharju said:

This is why "Hate Crime" statutes are utterly unjust, for it is not enough to punish certain people for what  they do,they must be punished for what they think as well. As in Or-well.

That's ridiculous.  You absolutely are punished more if you plan to kill a man vs.killing him accidentally due to negligence.  Exactly the same outcome; two very different crimes, based on what the criminal was thinking.

[gowlerk 2,283]

33 minutes ago, markharju said:

This is why "Hate Crime" statutes are utterly unjust, for it is not enough to punish certain people for what  they do,they must be punished for what they think as well. As in Or-well.

There is something in what you say about all crimes being equal. There is also something in providing an extra penalty for crimes motivated by beliefs that we want to suppress. Of course we can not change the minds of the haters, but increased penalties are not designed to do that. They are designed to send a clear message to society in general. We have hate crime laws because our history is rife with hate being allowed and we want tools to force change. Unjust? Dylan Roof.

[Guest]

22 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

Killing a man in a fist-fight after he called your wife a whore is very different from killing a man because you don't like the colour of his skin.

Is it? The end result is the same (an act - homicide). Why should the punishment (where both are crimes of passion) be different? Perhaps it is because it (prosecuting a thought-crime instead of or in addition to an act) has great potential to be applied unjustly. This is why snuffing granny for the insurance money and the estate is considered more heinous, because it was planned with malice aforethought, rather than an act which occurs in the heat of the moment. This is over long and yanksplaining, but I fail to see how punishing people for thoughts instead of deeds can be anything but highly subjective. How is the guy who killed the man who insulted his wife any less blinded by hatred? Sorry, I don't see it. Neither should anyone in a self-governing society.

[gowlerk 2,283]

1 minute ago, markharju said:

How is the guy who killed the man who insulted his wife any less blinded by hatred? Sorry, I don't see it. Neither should anyone in a self-governing society.

I also find this to be a bad example. Is it okay for a wife to kill another woman for insulting her husband? But again, Dylan Roof.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

6 minutes ago, markharju said:

Is it? The end result is the same (an act - homicide). Why should the punishment (where both are crimes of passion) be different?

Killing a man for the colour of his skin is not a crime of passion. A crime of passion requires sudden anger or heartbreak. Long simmering hatred is not sudden.

Should also not that "Crime of Passion" is a defense used to lesson the severity of a homicide. Your justice system is already based on the idea that lack of thought reduces severity of a crime. Then why would you be upset with specific thought increasing the severity of a crime?

Edited April 17, 2020 by SkyDekker

[Guest]

13 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

I also find this to be a bad example. Is it okay for a wife to kill another woman for insulting her husband? But again, Dylan Roof.

Again, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wichita_Massacre

[Guest]

12 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

Killing a man for the colour of his skin is not a crime of passion. A crime of passion requires sudden anger or heartbreak. Long simmering hatred is not sudden.

Should also not that "Crime of Passion" is a defense used to lesson the severity of a homicide. Your justice system is already based on the idea that lack of thought reduces severity of a crime. Then why would you be upset with specific thought increasing the severity of a crime?

Because it's just that - thought. When did  you develop ESP?

[gowlerk 2,283]

1 minute ago, markharju said:

Because it's just that - thought. When did  you develop ESP?

ESP is not enough to establish a motive when prosecuting a hate crime. In order to be successful the prosecutor must show hard proof.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Just now, markharju said:

Because it's just that - thought. When did  you develop ESP?

But your justice system is already based on that. One of the items required for a crime to be a crime is "criminal intent". The difference between murder in the 1st and man slaughter is the amount of thought that went into a crime for example.

 

[wmw999 2,600]

9 minutes ago, markharju said:

Again, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wichita_Massacre

How does this relate to Dylan Roof or hate crime? The Carrs were just plain criminals and wack jobs. They targeted a houseful of white people, and did hateful things. But they wanted the stuff, and to get their sick rocks off while getting it, not to make a statement. There are sick, depraved, people of every color. 

Wendy P.

Edited April 17, 2020 by wmw999

[Guest]

37 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

But your justice system is already based on that. One of the items required for a crime to be a crime is "criminal intent". The difference between murder in the 1st and man slaughter is the amount of thought that went into a crime for example.

 

Still different acts.Going out and buying the rope to strangle granny is an act. Using it on granny is an act. Talking about strangling granny is not.

[Guest]

39 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

How does this relate to Dylan Roof or hate crime? The Carrs were just plain criminals and wack jobs. They targeted a houseful of white people, and did hateful things. But they wanted the stuff, and to get their sick rocks off while getting it, not to make a statement. There are sick, depraved, people of every color. 

Wendy P.

This is what I mean. Any racial motives they may have had were not even considered. What if the races of the perps and vics in the Wichita Massacre were REVERSED? There would have been an AUTOMATIC  assumption of race-based motivation. This is why "thought crimes" are unjust. They were not applied to the Carr brothers. Edit to add: Dylan Roof was a wack job too. What makes him so special?

Edited April 17, 2020 by Guest

[SkyDekker 1,465]

4 minutes ago, markharju said:

Still different acts.Going out and buying the rope to strangle granny is an act. Using it on granny is an act. Talking about strangling granny is not.

Uhmm yes. so?

 

Murder in the 1st is an act. Manslaughter is an act. Yet "thought" plays a huge roll in determining the severity of the crime between those two acts of homicide.

If your problem is "thought" playing a role in your justice system then your issue isn't just with hate crimes, it is with your entire criminal law system.

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

6 minutes ago, markharju said:

Still different acts.Going out and buying the rope to strangle granny is an act. Using it on granny is an act. Talking about strangling granny is not.

Actually, talking about it is an 'act'.

Talk about it with another person and you have a conspiracy. 
Go out and buy the rope after talking about it with another person and you have 'an act that furthers the conspiracy'.

That constitutes a crime that can be prosecuted.

[JerryBaumchen 1,471]

1 hour ago, markharju said:

 I fail to see how punishing people for thoughts instead of deeds can be anything but highly subjective. 

Hi Mark,

If one steps back & looks at all of our laws as objectively as one can, IMO you will conclude that all laws are subjective.

That is why some crimes here is the USA are not crimes in other countries.  And the same goes for state vs state here in the USA.  

Jerry Baumchen

[JerryBaumchen 1,471]

1 minute ago, wolfriverjoe said:

Actually, talking about it is an 'act'.

Hi Joe,

Ratz; you beat me to it.

Jerry Baumchen

[Guest]

Agreed. One need only look up "stupid laws" to see that. Yet there must be a consensus - a common if not universal understanding. Example: murder=bad, but what makes it so? We think we know stupid laws when we see them, and yet stupidity would appear to be in the eye of the beholder, which is why I've never understood the "reasonable person" part of some laws, especially federal ones. How do the feds get to decide what or who is "reasonable"? Wow, this topic sure went off the reservation!

Edited April 17, 2020 by Guest

[Guest]

2 hours ago, gowlerk said:

Individuals can believe whatever they want. States must not care what anyone believes. They are allowed to care what people do.

....aaaannnddd this is why I believe thought-crimes are unjust.

[JerryBaumchen 1,471]

4 minutes ago, markharju said:

How do the feds get to decide what or who is "reasonable"? 

Hi Mark,

They don't; they, along with any Dist Atty, only do the charging.  The jury ( sometimes just the judge ) make the determination of 'reasonable.'

Jerry Baumchen