Hate crime? Really?

AndrewJRenko

AndrewJRenko wrote:

Because that's how crimes usually work - A stabs B and B shoots A - so the crimes cancel each other out?

Can you please answer? Do you think calling someone fat is a hate crime?

AndrewJRenko

AndrewJRenko wrote:

Isn't that the definition of 'offensive' ; "Causing someone to feel resentful, upset, or annoyed" - if it causes offence, it is, by definition, offensive. Why would someone explicitly choose to use a word that they know will cause offence to some people when other alternatives are easily available?

No. It's not up to me to ensure that people aren't offended. If people are offended by me, **** off.

If I am going about my business or saying something to my friend and someone overhears and gets offended, that's on them. Or I am talking to someone in a manner I deem acceptable, I will and their offence is their issue not mine.

If my intention is to offend, that's different but I am not tailoring my speech to suit the easily offended. People can be offended by anything these days.

gmisk

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

A punch...for calling someone a bunch of sticks?

But would it be a hate crime?

It is really not nice to take the piss.
Would you feel the same if your brother/sister or a friend had f#ggot yelled at them in a dark alley and their face slashed with a Stanley knife?
Grow up and show a little decency.

AndrewJRenko

Deleted User wrote: »

No. It's not up to me to ensure that people aren't offended. If people are offended by me, **** off.

If I am going about my business or saying something to my friend and someone overhears and gets offended, that's on them. Or I am talking to someone in a manner I deem acceptable, I will and their offence is their issue not mine.

If my intention is to offend, that's different but I am not tailoring my speech to suit the easily offended. People can be offended by anything these days.

Really sounds like it IS your intention to offend - deliberately choosing a term that was changed legally in the USA more than 25 years ago - simply because it offends, when you have lots of alternatives available. It's really a kind of verbal trolling, isn't it?

AndrewJRenko

Deleted User wrote: »

Can you please answer? Do you think calling someone fat is a hate crime?

How would that help? I'm happy with the Wiki definition of hate crime, and I'm happy that Gardai, DPP and Courts can implement this definition making judgements on a case-by-case basis as they do with all other crimes.


If there's a point here, maybe try making the point - I guess you're trying to say something about how hate crime will be slippery slope and we're all going to be arrested for calling people snowflakes or something - is that the point?

AndrewJRenko

AndrewJRenko wrote:

Really sounds like it IS your intention to offend - deliberately choosing a term that was changed legally in the USA more than 25 years ago - simply because it offends, when you have lots of alternatives available. It's really a kind of verbal trolling, isn't it?

No it isn't.

AndrewJRenko wrote:

If there's a point here, maybe try making the point - I guess you're trying to say something about how hate crime will be slippery slope and we're all going to be arrested for calling people snowflakes or something - is that the point?

No, you keep trotting out that you are happy that the Wikipedia definition is what hate crime is to you. I am asking you to clarify if, by your own definition, calling someone fat is a hate crime? A simple yes or no will do.

Roger Hassenforder

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Why don't you check the Wiki definition and work it out for yourself?

Dont mind wiki, I just want to know whether you'd regard it as a hate crime.

Simple question.

batgoat

stefanovich wrote: »

You referenced them as a group who wants more hate crime legislation. The fact that it is a Soros funded organisation just proves my ulterior motive suspicions.

The Gardai and CSO both favour as well...

stefanovich

batgoat wrote: »

The Gardai and CSO both favour as well...

The CSO has a political opinion now? I thought they were supposed to be impartial and focused on collecting and presenting the data.

The guards want to make prosecutions easier.

AndrewJRenko

stefanovich wrote: »

The guards want to make prosecutions easier.

The utter bastards.

AndrewJRenko

AndrewJRenko wrote:

The utter bastards.

Still no answer?

AndrewJRenko

AndrewJRenko wrote:

The utter bastards.

It's so easy to give glib remarks but then ignore pertinent questions. When asked what is a hate crime, you said "look at the wiki definition".

When asked if, by the definition you provided, calling someone fat would be a hate crime, you obfuscate and refuse to answer. Why?

Do you agree with the wiki definition (that you have pointed to numerous times) and feel that calling a person fat is a hate crime, or do you not?

AndrewJRenko

Deleted User wrote: »

No it isn't.

So why do you deliberately choose a word that you know will offend ordinary, decent, sometimes vulnerable people when you have loads of alternatives available? Are you so insecure that you feel that using a different word will be some kind of loss for you?

Deleted User wrote: »

No, you keep trotting out that you are happy that the Wikipedia definition is what hate crime is to you. I am asking you to clarify if, by your own definition, calling someone fat is a hate crime? A simple yes or no will do.

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

Dont mind wiki, I just want to know whether you'd regard it as a hate crime.

Simple question.

Deleted User wrote: »

It's so easy to give glib remarks but then ignore pertinent questions. When asked what is a hate crime, you said "look at the wiki definition".

When asked if, by the definition you provided, calling someone fat would be a hate crime, you obfuscate and refuse to answer. Why?

Do you agree with the wiki definition (that you have pointed to numerous times) and feel that calling a person fat is a hate crime, or do you not?

I'm not going to be playing your game, lads. My personal opinion on edge cases is entirely irrelevant. I'm not going to be the one making decisions about prosecutions or punishments.


You keep presenting these edge cases as if they are some kind of barrier to hate crime legislation.The experience in the many other countries that have hate crime legislation to protect vulnerable people would suggest that you're wrong.

AndrewJRenko

AndrewJRenko wrote:

I'm not going to be playing your game, lads. My personal opinion on edge cases is entirely irrelevant. I'm not going to be the one making decisions about prosecutions or punishments.

If your personal opinion is irrelevant then why the **** are you talking on a discussion board if you won't give your opinion?

It was a couple of pages ago when you were demanding that a "disabled" person give you a yes or no answer. You've painted yourself into a corner and you know it. Either stand by your definition or admit you were wrong and it is open to gross misinterpretation.

How is it an edge case? I would argue that Sineads case is an edge case yet you went in both barrels and said without doubt that it was a hate crime.

At least be consistent.

AndrewJRenko wrote:

So why do you deliberately choose a word that you know will offend ordinary, decent, sometimes vulnerable people when you have loads of alternatives available? Are you so insecure that you feel that using a different word will be some kind of loss for you?

Because honestly, I was unaware that certain people found the word handicapped offensive. I've used it consistently while conversing to and about handicapped people and I have never been corrected.

To be honest, I may choose to refrain from using that word to people I don't know, but until "disabled" people I know balk at my political incorrectness, I'm fine using that term

AndrewJRenko

AndrewJRenko wrote:

I'm not going to be playing your game, lads. My personal opinion on edge cases is entirely irrelevant. I'm not going to be the one making decisions about prosecutions or punishments.

I'd argue there are many more cases of assaults that include people being called fat than there are people leapfrogging over small people. What is an edge case in your opinion?

Blueshoe

[Deleted User] wrote: »

If your personal opinion is irrelevant then why the **** are you talking on a discussion board if you won't give your opinion?

It was a couple of pages ago when you were demanding that a "disabled" person give you a yes or no answer. You've painted yourself into a corner and you know it. Either stand by your definition or admit you were wrong and it is open to gross misinterpretation.

How is it an edge case? I would argue that Sineads case is an edge case yet you went in both barrels and said without doubt that it was a hate crime.

At least be consistent.



Because honestly, I was unaware that certain people found the word handicapped offensive. I've used it consistently while conversing to and about handicapped people and I have never been corrected.

To be honest, I may choose to refrain from using that word to people I don't know, but until "disabled" people I know balk at my political incorrectness, I'm fine using that term

Don't waste your time. This chap was ran from another thread after complaining continuosly that reception desks in hotels should be lower because they are discriminating against some people.

That's what you are dealing with here. Don't even bother

Blueshoe

Blueshoe wrote:

Don't waste your time. This chap was ran from another thread after complaining continuosly that reception desks in hotels should be lower because they are discriminating against some people.

Hahaha. Brilliant. Thought as much

AndrewJRenko

Blueshoe wrote: »

Don't waste your time. This chap was ran from another thread after complaining continuosly that reception desks in hotels should be lower because they are discriminating against some people.

That's what you are dealing with here. Don't even bother

And by 'ran', you mean that the Moderator just happened to land after your post, not mine, right? You were just as 'ran' from that thread as I was.

Blueshoe

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

And by 'ran', you mean that the Moderator just happened to land after your post, not mine, right? You were just as 'ran' from that thread as I was.

You are right. It's normal behaviour to whinge about reception desks in hotels discriminating against people. And to post countless links and pictures of low desks who don't discriminate.

As I said before. The outrage is outrageous

AndrewJRenko

AndrewJRenko wrote:

And by 'ran', you mean that the Moderator just happened to land after your post, not mine, right? You were just as 'ran' from that thread as I was.

Are you going to address my response?

AndrewJRenko

Blueshoe wrote: »

You are right. It's normal behaviour to whinge about reception desks in hotels discriminating against people. And to post countless links and pictures of low desks who don't discriminate.

As I said before. The outrage is outrageous

I really thought that the Basil Fawlty school of hotel management had died out in the 1970s, but apparently finding ways to make like difficult for your customers is considered smart business by some relics.

What's your big concern about being considered 'normal'? Are you unable to make your own mind up about things?

AndrewJRenko

AndrewJRenko wrote:

What's your big concern about being considered 'normal'? Are you unable to make your own mind up about things?

Ok. Pot kettle.

What is your opinion on my question or are you going to point us back to a wiki that you've already refused to get behind?

AndrewJRenko

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Are you going to address my response?

A second time?

AndrewJRenko

AndrewJRenko wrote:

A second time?

No. The first please.

In YOUR opinion, is calling someone fat a hate crime, considering that you agree that the wiki definition is the right one?

That's all I want to know

Roger Hassenforder

[Deleted User] wrote: »

No. The first please.

In YOUR opinion, is calling someone fat a hate crime, considering that you agree that the wiki definition is the right one?

That's all I want to know

I'm waiting too...

AndrewJRenko

Deleted User wrote: »

No. The first please.

In YOUR opinion, is calling someone fat a hate crime, considering that you agree that the wiki definition is the right one?

That's all I want to know

In MY opinion, I'm not going to be playing your game, lads. My personal opinion on edge cases is entirely irrelevant. I'm not going to be the one making decisions about prosecutions or punishments.

AndrewJRenko

AndrewJRenko wrote:

In MY opinion, I'm not going to be playing your game, lads. My personal opinion on edge cases is entirely irrelevant. I'm not going to be the one making decisions about prosecutions or punishments.

Yet you were one of the first to call leapfrogging a hate crime.

Take a seat chief. Either own your ideals or don't. It's ok

AndrewJRenko

AndrewJRenko wrote:

In MY opinion, I'm not going to be playing your game, lads. My personal opinion on edge cases is entirely irrelevant. I'm not going to be the one making decisions about prosecutions or punishments.

That's embarrassing

Blueshoe

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

In MY opinion, I'm not going to be playing your game, lads. My personal opinion on edge cases is entirely irrelevant. I'm not going to be the one making decisions about prosecutions or punishments.

That was a shameful cop out

AndrewJRenko

Deleted User wrote: »

Yet you were one of the first to call leapfrogging a hate crime.

Take a seat chief. Either own your ideals or don't. It's ok

Deleted User wrote: »

That's embarrassing

Funnily enough, 'owning my ideals' does not involve playing word games with you, as you try to create mythical barriers to implementing legislation that works really well in lots of other countries.

Blueshoe wrote: »

That was a shameful cop out

Bwaahaahaaa.

AndrewJRenko

AndrewJRenko wrote:

In MY opinion, I'm not going to be playing your game, lads. My personal opinion on edge cases is entirely irrelevant. I'm not going to be the one making decisions about prosecutions or punishments.

Nobody asked you to play agame.

We just asked if you had the courage in your conviction to double down on your fantastic Wikipedia definition that you used for deflection.

You don't.

You admit your opinion is irrelevant.

Remember that.

AndrewJRenko

Deleted User wrote: »

Nobody asked you to play agame.

We just asked if you had the courage in your conviction to double down on your fantastic Wikipedia definition that you used for deflection.

You don't.

You admit your opinion is irrelevant.

Remember that.

Thanks for the reminder. My opinion on particular edge cases is indeed irrelevant, as is yours, as are all the other barstool experts here. The agenda being pushed is that these edge cases make it difficult or impossible to implement hate crime legislation.



The reality of experience in the many countries that have implemented hate crime legislation



4.1.1 European Union
4.1.2 Andorra
4.1.3 Armenia
4.1.4 Austria
4.1.5 Azerbaijan
4.1.6 Belarus
4.1.7 Belgium
4.1.8 Bosnia and Herzegovina
4.1.9 Bulgaria
4.1.10 Croatia
4.1.11 Czech Republic
4.1.12 Denmark
4.1.13 Estonia
4.1.14 Finland
4.1.15 Nepal
4.1.16 France
4.1.17 Georgia
4.1.18 Germany
4.1.19 Greece
4.1.20 Hungary
4.1.21 Iceland
4.1.22 India
4.1.23 Ireland
4.1.24 Italy
4.1.25 Kazakhstan
4.1.26 Kyrgyzstan
4.1.27 Russia
4.1.28 Spain
4.1.29 Sweden
4.1.30 Ukraine
4.1.31 United Kingdom
4.1.31.1 Scotland

4.1.32 Eurasian countries with no hate crime laws

4.2 North America
4.2.1 Canada
4.2.2 United States
4.2.3 Victims in the United States

4.3 South America
4.3.1 Brazil
4.3.2 Chile

4.4 Middle East


clearly demonstrates that this is nonsense. Just like any other form of crime, these cases are managed by police, prosecutors and Courts without any huge difficulties. Remember that.

AndrewJRenko

AndrewJRenko wrote:

clearly demonstrates that this is nonsense. Just like any other form of crime, these cases are managed by police, prosecutors and Courts without any huge difficulties. Remember that.

Yeah. Great stuff.

Do you think that calling someone fat is a hate crime? Yes or no.

AndrewJRenko

AndrewJRenko wrote:

clearly demonstrates that this is nonsense. Just like any other form of crime, these cases are managed by police, prosecutors and Courts without any huge difficulties. Remember that.

Actually is shooting "fatty" at on obese person worse than leapfrogging a small person?

In your opinion. Not in law.

Ugh. I meant shouting. Autocorrect

AndrewJRenko

Deleted User wrote: »

Yeah. Great stuff.

Do you think that calling someone fat is a hate crime? Yes or no.

Deleted User wrote: »

Actually is shouting "fatty" at on obese person worse than leapfrogging a small person?

In your opinion. Not in law.

I'm working on a script to repost this link each time you ask the question, just to save some time. I'm not playing your game.

AndrewJRenko

AndrewJRenko wrote:

each time you ask the question, just to save some time. I'm not playing your game.

It's not a game. It's just calling you out. You smuggly referred people back to the wiki definition on multiple occasions but when you are asked if you stand by it it becomes a game.

Get t'****.

You've been shown up for what you are. Nobody here was playing a game except yourself.

You lost.

AndrewJRenko

Deleted User wrote: »

It's not a game. It's just calling you out. You smuggly referred people back to the wiki definition on multiple occasions but when you are asked if you stand by it it becomes a game.

Get t'****.

You've been shown up for what you are. Nobody here was playing a game except yourself.

You lost.

I've said multiple times that I stand by it. That doesn't mean I'm going to play your 'how many angels could be dancing on the head of a pin' game.



Is it the perfect definition? I don't know - I'm not an expert on the matter. Could it be improved through the usual process of bringing legislation into existence - yeah, it probably could, as most things are.



Does any of this matter on the principle of the importance and value of hate crime legislation? No, it doesn't.



But congrats on getting through the 'there MUST be hate in hate crime' phase btw. That's one good thing that's come out of this thread.

Blueshoe

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I've said multiple times that I stand by it. That doesn't mean I'm going to play your 'how many angels could be dancing on the head of a pin' game.



Is it the perfect definition? I don't know - I'm not an expert on the matter. Could it be improved through the usual process of bringing legislation into existence - yeah, it probably could, as most things are.



Does any of this matter on the principle of the importance and value of hate crime legislation? No, it doesn't.



But congrats on getting through the 'there MUST be hate in hate crime' phase btw. That's one good thing that's come out of this thread.

Your outrage is outrageous.

AndrewJRenko

Blueshoe wrote: »

Your outrage is outrageous.

But slightly less outrageous that your trolling. Is that all you've got?

AndrewJRenko

AndrewJRenko wrote:

I've said multiple times that I stand by it. That doesn't mean I'm going to play your 'how many angels could be dancing on the head of a pin' game.

Nobody asked you to play any game.

I simply asked, in your opinion, if calling someone fat (which by the definition you have cited on multiple occasions is a hate crime) is a hate crime.

You are unwilling to answer as you know it undermines your argument.

Omackeral

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

In MY opinion, I'm not going to be playing your game

Someone asks your opinion on a discussion boards. You won't give it. How weak.

Hector Savage

AJ Renko you should go into politics , you really can avoid a question.

So again, Yes or No - is calling a fat person "fatty" a hate crime ?

Hector Savage

Hector Savage wrote:

So again, Yes or No - is calling a fat person "fatty" a hate crime ?

Unfortunately he's painted himself into a corner. If he says no, he has undermined his definition of a hate crime, and if he says yes, he reveals that the label hate crime is nonsensical.

But, "I'm not playing your game" in response to someone asking a question is even more damning.

There's a lot to be said for holding your hands up and admitting you were wrong.

Although if I was a betting man, I'd imagine we are gonna see a double down of mad waffle

AndrewJRenko

Hector Savage wrote: »

AJ Renko you should go into politics , you really can avoid a question.

You're absolutely right, I really can avoid this question, for the reasons the post below confirms.

Deleted User wrote: »

Unfortunately he's painted himself into a corner. If he says no, he has undermined his definition of a hate crime, and if he says yes, he reveals that the label hate crime is nonsensical.

But, "I'm not playing your game" in response to someone asking a question is even more damning.

There's a lot to be said for holding your hands up and admitting you were wrong.

Yeah, it was fairly obvious where you were going with this from the first time you asked the question. Given that it took about a week for you to work out that the definition of hate crime does not include hate, I really don't have the patience to take you through this example, or the next edge case, or the next one.


The idea that this is some kind of barrier to implementation of hate crime is just silly. Many countries across the world have hate crime legislation, and their legal systems don't get frozen into paralysis dealing with cases of people being called fat.



Hate crime legislation works to protect vulnerable people in many countries round the world.

Hector Savage

Andy, how about a crime is a crime or it's not ?
Leave out this "hate" bollocks as it gets too complex ? Like I said what happens if I jump over a 5ft0 bloke (not a dwarf) ... or a 6ft6 lad with severe confidence issues ...

Surely they are hate crimes too ??

Blueshoe

Hector Savage wrote: »

Andy, how about a crime is a crime or it's not ?
Leave out this "hate" bollocks as it gets too complex ? Like I said what happens if I jump over a 5ft0 bloke (not a dwarf) ... or a 6ft6 lad with severe confidence issues ...

Surely they are hate crimes too ??

That depends on if the person who got jumped over.
Anyone apart from a white male is a hate crime

Roger Hassenforder

So if a fat gut calls a thin guy " skinny cnut" in response to him asking "who ate all the pies you fat bastáŕd"?

Are both hate crimes?

AndrewJRenko

Blueshoe wrote: »

That depends on if the person who got jumped over.
Anyone apart from a white male is a hate crime

The victimhood of the straight, white, middle aged male is a sight to behold.

Hector Savage wrote: »

Andy, how about a crime is a crime or it's not ?
Leave out this "hate" bollocks as it gets too complex ?

Not 'too complex' for the many other countries around the world that have hate crime legislation, funnily enough.

Hector Savage wrote: »

Like I said what happens if I jump over a 5ft0 bloke (not a dwarf) ... or a 6ft6 lad with severe confidence issues ...

Surely they are hate crimes too ??

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

So if a fat gut calls a thin guy " skinny cnut" in response to him asking "who ate all the pies you fat bastáŕd"?

Are both hate crimes?

If only someone could have predicted further, even more silly, follow up questions.