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

[Guest]

2 hours ago, SkyDekker said:

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

"Thou shalt not commit murder." (Exodus 20:13, often interpreted as "not kill", but the Israelites were a pretty bloodthirsty bunch, which is why there were all those goofy laws in Exodus and Leviticus - this stems from tradition). Is there anything really wrong with that?

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. 

Uh, that would be a "thought crime" which you appear to favor so highly.

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

Gee, Dek, generalize much?

 

[Guest]

17 minutes ago, JerryBaumchen said:

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

J, thanks for your input. I was referring to federal statutes which literally say "reasonable person". I seems to me that this legislative murkiness makes it the job of the judiciary to sort it out. It has never sat well with me.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

 

39 minutes ago, markharju said:

Is there anything really wrong with that?

No but making anal sex illegal because homosexuality is against the law is bad. Banning abortions because of religious purposes is bad. Providing free rain to bigotry under the guise of "sincerely held religious beliefs" is bad. Just to name a few.

Edited April 17, 2020 by SkyDekker

[JerryBaumchen 1,471]

18 minutes ago, markharju said:

I seems to me that this legislative murkiness makes it the job of the judiciary to sort it out. It has never sat well with me.

Hi Mark,

In his Democracy in America, Alexis de Tocqueville, said that 'ultimately everything in America will be decided in court.'  I may not have the exact wording, but IMO that is a fair synopsis.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexis_de_Tocqueville

C'est la vie,

Jerry Baumchen

 

 

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

45 minutes ago, markharju said:

J, thanks for your input. I was referring to federal statutes which literally say "reasonable person". I seems to me that this legislative murkiness makes it the job of the judiciary to sort it out. It has never sat well with me.

Which statutes are those? I'm not trying to be snarky, I'm genuinely curious.

I know what the 'reasonable man' standard is, and I know how it's applied.

But I can't find any actual statutes that use the term. 
I could be looking in the wrong place.

[gowlerk 2,283]

2 hours ago, markharju said:

There would have been an AUTOMATIC  assumption of race-based motivation.

There may have been an automatic assumption at first. But that does not mean a conviction for a hate crime. As I said, and you have not acknowledged, a hate crime conviction requires clear evidence of motive. Not circumstantial evidence, but provable cause to show the person was motivated by a bias against whatever the statute bars.

[gowlerk 2,283]

2 hours ago, markharju said:

Dylan Roof was a wack job too. What makes him so special?

Well, his stated motivation was to start a race war. Because like many before him he thought that a race war would eventually lead to the establishment of a white only homeland within the current USA. In other words, he wants a civil war to destroy your nation, overturn your constitution, and start anew. In other words he is a traitor as well as a murderer.

About the only good thing about such an event is that the new nations formed along racial divisions would be unlikely to repeat the mistake of the second amendment. The bad part is that they would likely drop the first as well.

[gowlerk 2,283]

2 hours ago, markharju said:

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

Thinking is not prohibited. You are allowed to hate anyone or anything you like. Only actions are prohibited and the punishment for those actions can sometimes be modified by their motivations. There is nothing new about this except that there are classes of persons that these laws are aimed at protecting. Just like there are laws protecting police specifically.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

8 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

Thinking is not prohibited. You are allowed to hate anyone or anything you like. Only actions are prohibited and the punishment for those actions can sometimes be modified by their motivations. There is nothing new about this except that there are classes of persons that these laws are aimed at protecting. Just like there are laws protecting police specifically.

Though the action of speaking can certainly be a crime in the US. Threatening the President of the United States is a felony. Turns out "thought crimes" are already a crime.

[Guest]

5 hours ago, SkyDekker said:

Though the action of speaking can certainly be a crime in the US. Threatening the President of the United States is a felony. Turns out "thought crimes" are already a crime.

...and in your country, failure to address someone by their "proper /preferred pronoun" can get you jailed. In the US, incitement (the old "fire in a crowded theater" test / communicating a threat) isn't protected. So your point is...?

[jakee 1,608]

12 hours ago, markharju said:

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?

They still would not have been legally considered. Kansas had no hate crime legislation allowing for either extra charges or extended sentencing in the year 2000.

 

I personally don't see any reason for the courts to go above and beyond the extent of the law when prosecuting blacks who kill whites, so I'm not really sure what your point is.

[jakee 1,608]

3 hours ago, markharju said:

...and in your country, failure to address someone by their "proper /preferred pronoun" can get you jailed. 

Jordan Peterson is lying to you.

[wmw999 2,600]

2 hours ago, jakee said:

I personally don't see any reason for the courts to go above and beyond the extent of the law when prosecuting blacks who kill whites, so I'm not really sure what your point is.

If there was a stated reason making it a hate crime, then it should apply. But it's the clear statement or series of actions (like belonging to the KKK) that is needed, not just "they were from different ethnicities."

Wendy P.

[Coreece 190]

28 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

If there was a stated reason making it a hate crime, then it should apply. But it's the clear statement or series of actions (like belonging to the KKK) that is needed

Even then it still may not be a hate crime.  About 20 years ago back in Detroit/Hamtramck, I was in the wrong place at the wrong time with the wrong "friend."  He said something stupid that got a couple guns pulled on us.  After they took our money, one of the guys shot the sawed off near my foot and said, "go back to your side, I fuckin' hate white people."

Just because he said "I fuckin' hate white people," doesn't necessarily make it a hate crime since he pulled the gun because of what my idiot "friend" said, not necessarily because we were white.  Same thing goes for the KKK guy - just because he's in the KKK doesn't automatically make a crime against a black person a hate crime.

[wmw999 2,600]

I completely agree.

Wendy P.

[JoeWeber 2,967]

17 hours 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? 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.

Well, there is always the off chance the guy's wife wasn't a whore so the dispute might be legitimate. On the other hand, given that the black guy, sort of, immediately confessed to his crime killing him seems a bit excessive.

[kallend 2,174]

How many sovereign nations has Iran invaded since, say, 1945?

How many sovereign nations has the USA invaded since, say, 1945?

 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, kallend said:

How many sovereign nations has Iran invaded since, say, 1945?

How many sovereign nations has the USA invaded since, say, 1945?

 

Iran bankrolls terror around the world, and nearly pulled off an assassination in DC. They rule Lebanon with an iron fist via Hezbollah. They provide funding and logistical support Syrian rebels in Golan, and are building yet another military installation in Western Syria (the Israelis are waiting for that one to be finished and fully manned/equipped before they flatten it). Moral: There are different kinds of invasion. Their Marxist trainers taught the Persians right. Many countries have military ambitions, some are better at it than others. I hope C19 helps the assahollah and all his corrupt cronies to meet Allah. JCPOA wasn't just about nukes. Iran also promised to stop being dirty. But then that's like expecting pigs to stay out of mud - it's just their nature.

Edited April 18, 2020 by Guest

[kallend 2,174]

Redefining words to make your case.

How come you didn't mention actual US invasions, along with CIA meddling?  Convenient lapse of memory?

You might take a look at Matthew 7:3

[Phil1111 1,192]

17 minutes ago, kallend said:

Redefining words to make your case.

How come you didn't mention actual US invasions, along with CIA meddling?  Convenient lapse of memory?

You might take a look at Matthew 7:3

Its reasonable to say that the US has committed acts of war against Iran three times in the last 66 years. The 1953 CIA coup and the cancellation without cause of the nuclear deal. Together with the impositions of a oil embargo/trade-finance embargo by trump arising from that act. Then the killing of Soleimani, Which was based upon barefaced lies.

The US just blocked an Iranian request for $5 billion loan from the IMF to fight C-19.  I think Mark has been ingesting too much of the Pompeo/trump kool-aid.

[gowlerk 2,283]

48 minutes ago, Phil1111 said:

I think Mark has been ingesting too much of the Pompeo/trump kool-aid.

I'm pretty sure it goes deeper into American military thinking than that. The bias and unwillingness to treat Iran fairly has an underlying cause. And that is the US decision to align itself with both the House of Saud and Israel. Yes Iran is a difficult and belligerent actor in the region, but there have been many opportunities to help change that which have been deliberately sabotaged by elements on all sides.

[billvon 3,131]

15 hours ago, markharju said:

...and in your country, failure to address someone by their "proper /preferred pronoun" can get you jailed. 

So can a friendly pat on the butt or a firing a woman just because she's a bitch with raging hormones.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

On 4/17/2020 at 10:29 PM, markharju said:

and in your country, failure to address someone by their "proper /preferred pronoun" can get you jailed.

Bullshit. And threatening the President isn't incitement, just like threatening your neighbour isn't incitement.

 

If you have to lie twice in a couple of sentences to try and maintain your point, you have probably lost the point.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

On 4/18/2020 at 8:31 AM, markharju said:

Iran bankrolls terror around the world

And the US hasn't? And Israel hasn't? Saudi Arabia hasn't? Already forgotten the Saudi attacks in new York City on September 11th, 2001? US' direct and indirect support of the Taliban. If your issue with Iran is around bankrolling terrorism, then you might want to look in your own country first.

(Never mind IRA funding etc)

[turtlespeed 226]

1 hour ago, SkyDekker said:

And the US hasn't? And Israel hasn't? Saudi Arabia hasn't? Already forgotten the Saudi attacks in new York City on September 11th, 2001? US' direct and indirect support of the Taliban. If your issue with Iran is around bankrolling terrorism, then you might want to look in your own country first.

(Never mind IRA funding etc)

So your defense for Iran is that “it’s OK - because others have done it. “

understood. 
 

 

Edited April 19, 2020 by turtlespeed