General Chat (Non-Music-Related)

If you have killed an innocent person for any reason, you need to burn.

I fall asleep at the wheel, cross the centerline of the highway and plow into a van load of people. Three out of 5 die. I need to burn???

I just killed 3 innocent people.

That's not murder. It's a regrettable accident.

Negligence if you only fell asleep, and subject to civil suit...but criminal if you were intoxicated and worthy of a manslaughter charge.

C'mon....

Just circling back around to motive, Ted.

OK, but "cause" and "motive" are not the same.

Motive presumes to know another person's intentions. In an accident there is no "motive" because it was not a predetermined action. So again, anyone who has killed an innocent person (on purpose) has arrived at the same result, whether they did it for greed, or passion, or hatred, or racism.

They should all be treated the same.

Whatever....we can agree to disagree on some things.
I'm not losing any sleep and I know you're not as well.
Peace out-
Gotta help a brother in distress!!

Yeah, not offended in the least by you being wrong, and refusing to acknowledge the holes in your logic.

By who's legal dictionary? Ted is right a crime is a crime. The question then becomes by who's rules? What other man alive has the privilege to decide by subjective interpretation that the crime is far more serious than a similar crime.
Connecticut passed a law requiring any owner of a semi automatic hunting rifle to register them. Overnight over a 100 thousand responsible gun owners became class D felons.
In NY there are laws on the books that still make it possible for a woman to be arrested for baring her breast... Even if she is feeding her baby.
This is where the law starts to step over the boundaries of responsible FREE men.
I am NOT advocating anarchy...But I will NOT tolerate anarchy by rule of law.
Under God, NO man is more important than me...And... I am no more important than they are. HMMM, a little conundrum once again.
Instead we sink to a new level where men use their own reckless motivation, to control, the many, with their own selfish privilege.
Hate crime... We have already reached a point where the law says you can be found guilty just by intent. You have sneakers on... You were going to run in avoidance of prosecution. You even just think about it our laws now can a convict you of intent.
WHERE does it stop? Total ridiculosity is just around the corner!

at one time in history our founding fathers indeed thought some men were more important than others though, if you were not a property holder or an owner of property, you were not allowed to vote..

http://politicalpistachio.blogspot.com/ ... perty.html



However, as human nature dictates, the propertyless have demanded gifts from the treasury in exchange for their vote, and the politicians have been more than happy to acquiesce. What we have as a result is a permanent voting block that cares less about the issues, and votes based on who will continue to issue them government checks, food stamps, free health care, and anything else they can get from the government, or as a woman in Detroit, Michigan put it, "Obama's stash."

Had to click the link just to find out exactly what an "ille" is.

Supposed to be 'illegal lemonade stand', but I guess BM has a title length limit.

The practice of providing gifts from the treasury is something that never stops growing, and eventually in society those that take from the system will outnumber the producers. Such a system is not sustainable. As Margaret Thatcher so eloquently put it, "Eventually you run out of other people's money.

"A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship."

That was a question about who decides what law should exist.
Please don't put a spin on one statement by taking it out of context.
Yes, Piggy Lives Matter! Are you going to sign my petition and join my protest at BOARS HEAD corporate headquarters?

Had to click the link just to find out exactly what an "ille" is.

Supposed to be 'illegal lemonade stand', but I guess BM has a title length limit.

I thought dozens of cops raided the offices of that magazine, Elle.

Ted, I said I was circling back. I didn't say I was there!!!

And you will never arrive by going down that circular road! You took a "left" turn when you should have been looking for the "right"

What was that about logic???

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/motive

A Hate Crime is one crime that requires proof of a certain motive. Generally, a hate crime is motivated by the defendant's belief regarding a protected status of the victim, such as the victim's religion, sex, disability, customs, or national origin. In states that prosecute hate crimes, the prosecution must prove that the defendant was motivated by animosity toward a protected status of the victim. Hate-crime laws are exceptions to the general rule that proof of motive is not required in a criminal prosecution.

We are not debating whether it's "legal", we are talking about whether it is "right"


......and it is not.

Straight out of a legal dictionary there, Teddy.
I rest my case.

And again I point out that "legal" used to say that a man could own another man.

It further protects our rights to freedom of worship.
It's a deterrent to those who want to burn your church down.

I'm glad you bring that up because, actually, it does absolutely nothing to protect churches of the wrong political class.

Gay churches are protected, Christian churches are not.

The Mayor of Houston should be in jail for hate crimes against the churches of her city, for example.